Office of Transportation                  EPA420-R-06-006
United States     and Air Quality                    March 2006
Environmental Protection
Agency
         EPA Technical Study on the
         Safety of Emission Controls
         for Nonroad Spark-Ignition
         Engines < 50 Horsepower

-------
                                             EPA420-R-06-006
                                                 March 2006
       EPA Technical Study on the Safety of
               Emission Controls for
Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines < 50 Horsepower
                Assessment and Standards Division
              Office of Transportation and Air Quality
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
Executive Summary

The purpose of this technical study is to assess the incremental impact on safely of applying the advanced emission
control technology expected to meet the new emission standards under consideration for particular subcategories of
nonroad engines and equipment, focusing on the risk of fire and burn to consumers in use. The study will be part of
the rulemaking record for the proposed standards and satisfies the provisions of section 205 of PL  109-54, which
requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess potential safety issues, including the risk of fire and
burn to consumers in use, associated with the proposed emission standards for nonroad spark-ignition (SI) engines
under 50 horsepower (hp).  As  is discussed below, this technical study concludes that new emission standards
would not increase the risk of fire and burn to consumers in use.  In fact, in  a number of circumstances the study
demonstrates a directional decrease in risk.

This study evaluates new exhaust and evaporative emission standards for nonhandheld (NHH) and handheld (HH)
equipment in the Small SI engine category and outboard (OB) and personal watercraft (PWC) engines and vessels
in its Marine SI engine category. The new emission standards addressed by this study include:

    •   New catalyst-based hydrocarbon plus oxides of nitrogen (HC+NOx)  exhaust emission standards for NHH
        engines;

    •   New HC+NOx and carbon monoxide (CO) exhaust emission standards for OB/PWC engines and vessels;

    •   New fuel evaporative emission standards for NHH and HH equipment; and

    •   New evaporative emission standards for OB/PWC engines and vessels.

The following summarizes EPA's assessment of the incremental impact on safety of new standards in each of these
four areas.  For each new standard, EPA concludes that  the forthcoming Phase 3 emission standards may be
implemented without any incremental increase in risk of fire or burn to consumers in use.  Furthermore, the testing
and analysis also indicates that compliance with the Phase 3 emissions standards will most likely reduce the risk to
consumers of operating Phase 2 products in these subcategories.

Exhaust emission standards for NHH engines:  We conducted the technical study of the incremental risk of catalyst-
based HC+NOx emission standards for NHH engines on several fronts.  First, working with the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC), EPA evaluated CPSC reports and databases and other outside sources to identify those
in-use situations which create fire and burn risk for consumers. Six basic scenarios were identified  for evaluation.
Second, EPA conducted extensive laboratory and field testing of both current technology (Phase 2) and prototype
catalyst-equipped  advanced technology engines and equipment (Phase 3) to assess the emissions performance and
thermal characteristics of the engines and equipment.  EPA also contracted with Southwest Research Institute
(SwRI) to conduct design and process Failure Mode and Effects Analyses (FMEA) comparing Phase 2 and Phase 3
compliant engines and equipment to evaluate incremental changes in risk probability as  a way of evaluating the
incremental risk of going from Phase 2 to Phase 3 emission standards. Our technical work and subsequent analysis
of all of the data and information strongly indicate  that catalyst-based standards can be implemented without an
incremental increase in the risk of fire or burn to the consumer. In many cases, the designs used for catalyst-based
technology can lead to an incremental decrease in such risk.

Evaporative emission standards for NHH and HH engines and equipment: EPA also evaluated the incremental risk
of fire and  burn  to  consumers  for  the evaporative emission standards we are considering for NHH and HH
equipment. For both subcategories we are considering fuel tank and fuel hose  permeation standards similar to those
in place for  other nonroad SI engines and vehicles,  such as all-terrain vehicles and off-highway motorcycles. In
addition, for NHH equipment we are considering running loss controls designed to reduce emissions related to fuel
in the tank evaporating to the atmosphere during equipment operation.  Working with CPSC, EPA evaluated CPSC
databases to identify those in-use situations which create fire and burn risk for consumers. Fuel leaks from tanks or
fuel hoses on HH and NHH equipment were identified as the major safety concern for evaluation.

-------
Fuel tanks used on HH and NHH equipment are constructed of different types of materials using different processes
and each has a potentially different approach to controlling tank permeation emissions. EPA evaluated both current
and treated fuel tanks in the laboratory for several years and identified no incremental safety risk related to the
technologies for reducing permeation emissions. Most fuel hoses meet American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) and Society of Automotive  Engineers (SAE) standards, and the types of fuel hoses needed to reduce
permeation are in widespread use today. In fact, some lawn and garden equipment already uses* low  permeation
hose.

Beyond this, in situations where custom fuel hoses are used there are the ASTM and manufacturer specific test
procedures and  requirements  that assure proper in-use performance.  With regard to fuel tanks, there are
manufacturer specific test procedures and  requirements which manufacturers apply to current products and will
continue to use in the  future.  The  emissions  durability portion of EPA's permeation test  procedures inherently
includes the types of evaluations needed to identify the potential for leaks  in-use.  The FMEA conducted by SwRl
also looked at systems interaction between  engine  modifications and  the fuel  system and determined   that
permeation controls and running loss controls on NHH  fuel  tanks would  not increase the  fire and burn risk
probability but could in fact lead to  directionally  better  systems  from a  safety  perspective. Overall,  there is no
incremental safety risk in applying advanced  technology  to reduced evaporative emissions from HH and NHH
engines and equipment, and to some degree the use of technology can lead to an incremental decrease in risk.

Exhaust emission standards for OB/PWC engines  and vessels:  EPA is also considering new HC+NOx and CO
exhaust emission standards for OB/PWC engines and vessels. The US Coast Guard (USCG) keeps a close watch
over marine safety issues, and USCG,. as well  as several other  organizations, including SAE,  Underwriters
Laboratories (UL), and  the American Boat  and Yacht Council (ABYC), already have safety standards which apply
to engines and fuel systems  used in these vessels.  The four-stroke  and two-stroke direct  injection engine
technologies that are likely to be  used  to meet the  exhaust emission standards  being considered by  EPA for
OB/PWC  are  in widespread use in the vessel fleet today. These more sophisticated engine  technologies are
replacing two-stroke carbureted engines. These four-stroke and two-stroke direct injection engines meet applicable
USCG and ABYC safety standards and future products will do so as well. The  proposed emission standards must be
complementary to the already existing safety standards and our analysis indicates that this is the case. There are no
known safety issues with this technology compared to the two-stroke carbureted engines and arguably the newer
technology engines provide safety benefits  due to improved engine reliability in use. Based on the applicability of
USCG and ABYC safety standards and the  good in-use experience with advanced technology engines in the current
vessel  fleet, EPA believes new emission standards would not create an incremental increase in the risk of fire or
burn to the consumer.

Evaporative emission standards for  OB/PWC engines and vessels:  EPA also analyzed the incremental impact on
safety  for the fuel hose and  fuel  tank  permeation  and I fuel tank diurnal evaporative emission standards  it is
considering for marine vessels.  As with the exhaust emission  standards, the proposed emission standards must
complement existing USCG,  ABYC, and SAE test procedures and safety standards related to fuel  hoses for marine
vessels and USCG, UL, and ABYC standards and test procedures covering portable and installed fuel tanks. All of
these standards are designed to address the in-use performance of fuel systems with the goal of eliminating fuel
leaks.  The low permeation fuel hoses needed to meet the Phase 3 requirements would need to pass these standards,
and evidence indicates  that this would occur.  In fact, fuel hoses  meeting these requirements are available today.
The low permeation fuel tanks needed to meet the Phase 3 requirements  would also need  to  pass the applicable
USCG, UL, and  ABYC standards; work  conducted by  EPA and  vendors  supplying the marine tank industry
indicates that the technology needed to meet these standards can be applied without an incremental increase in risk
over current systems.

EPA is also considering fuel tank diurnal emissions standards for fuel tanks used on Marine SI engines and vessels.
For PWC and portable OB  fuel tanks,  this would likely entail  the use of venting control technology already
commonly used in these tanks.  For vessels with installed fuel tanks this would likely employ the use of activated
carbon canisters to capture this vapor. Such canisters have been used safely on automobiles for more than 30 years
and a prototype fleet run last summer revealed no safety concerns.  Overall, there should be no incremental increase
in risk of fire or burn to consumers in applying advanced technology  to  reduce  evaporative emissions from

-------
OB/PWC engines and vessels.  In fact, the reduction of permeation emissions is likely to incrementally decrease
safety risks from fire in the under floor areas on boats where the tanks and hoses are installed.

In summary, EPA has evaluated the incremental impact on safety focusing on the risk of fire and burn to consumers
associated with the advanced technologies expected to meet the new emission standards EPA is considering for the
Small SI engine and Marine SI engine categories under 50 hp. Laboratory and field testing, the FMEA analyses,,
the mandatory and consensus test procedures and standards which apply to these engines and fuel systems, and the
availability of certain components and engines which already meet the Phase 3 standards lead EPA to conclude that
new emission standards would not cause an  incremental increase in risk of fire or burn to consumers  in use.
Instead, compliance with  the  new standards should reduce  certain safety concerns  presented  by  current
technologies.

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1

LIST OF ACRONYMS	,	7

1.   INTRODUCTION	.	.	.	.	.....9
                           \
  A.    BACKGROUND.....	9
  B.    OVERVIEW	:	:	11

2.   EPA'S APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT OF THE SAFETY ISSUE	13

  A.    SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT	13
  B.    THE SMALL SI ENGINE ASSESSMENT	13
  C.    MARINE SI ASSESSMENT	13

3.   TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ON NONHANDHELD ENGINES	15

  A.    CURRENT TECHNOLOGY	15
    Class I engines	16
    Class H engines	18
  B.    CURRENT SAFETY STANDARDS	21
  C.    IN-USE SAFETY EXPERIENCE	23
    CPSC Databases:	24
    Discussion of CPSC Data	27

4.   SCENARIOS FOR EVALUATION OF NHH ENGINES AND EQUIPMENT		,...29

  A.    SUMMARY OF OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED	29
  B.  SAFETY SCENARIOS FOR EVALUATION	30
    Scenario /: Contact burns	30
    Scenario 2: Debris fire:	.30
    Scenario 3: Fires due to fuel leak	31
    Scenario 4: Fires related to refueling	31
    Scenario 5: Fire related to storage and shutdown	31
    Scenario 6; Ignition misfire	31
    Scenario 7: Fire due to rich operation	32

5.   NHH TEST PROGRAM	33

  A.    ENGINE SELECTION	33'
  B.    ENGINE MODIFICATIONS	34
    Class I -10 g/kW-hr systems	34
    Class If- 3.5g/kW-hr HC+NOx system	40
    Class II- 8.0 g/kW-hr HC+NOx systems	43
  C.    INFRARED THERMAL IMAGING	45
  D.    LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES	46
    Operation over the Federal A-Cycle	46
    Hot Soak Testing.	47
    After-fire Testing.	47
    Misfire Testing.	48
    Simulated Rich Operation	49
  E.    FIELD OPERATION	49
    Acquisition of IR Thermal Images in the Field.	54

-------
6.   TEST RESULTS—COMPARISON BETWEEN EPA'S PHASE 3 PROTOTYPES AND CURRENT
ENGINE SYSTEMS	........		;	...55
  A.    EMISSIONS RESULTS	55
  B.    LABORATORY TEST RESULTS	55
    Surface temperature measurements by infrared thermal imaging — Class I Side-valve Engines	55
    Infrared thermal imaging—Class 1OHVEngines	'.	59
    Infrared thermal imaging-Class HOHVEngines	77
    Muffler outlet temperatures - Class I and Class li Engines	89
    Run-on after-fire testing	89
    Ignition misfire testing	90
    Rich Operation	94
  C.    FIELD TESTING RESULTS	96
    Surface Temperature Measurements by Infrared Thermal Imaging Taken During Grass Cutting Operations..97
    Results of Hot-Soak Tests Conducted in the Field	98
    Idle Testing	103

7.   DESIGN AND PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSES (FMEA) TO ASSESS NHH
INCREMENTAL SAFETY RISK	104

  A.    BACKGROUND	104
  B.    THE WORK CONDUCTED BY SWRI	105
  C.    DESIGN FMEA	107
  D.    PROCESS FMEA	109
  E,    FMEA RESULTS	109
  F.    DISCUSSION OF DESIGN FMEAs FOR CLASSES I AND II	110
  G.    CONCLUSION.....	•.	Ill
8.   CONCLUSIONS - IMPACT  OF PHASE 3  EXHAUST STANDARDS ON CLASS I AND CLASS II
NHH ENGINES.	:	130
  SCENARIO 1: CONTACT BURNS	130
    Scenario Description: Thermal burns due to inadvertent contact with hot surface on engine or equipment... 130
    Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:	750
    Conclusions Based on FMEA of Burn Safety	134
  SCENARIO 2: DEBRIS FIRE	134
    Scenario Description: Grass and leaf debris on engine/equipment	134
    Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:	134
    Conclusions Based on FMEA of Debris Fire Safety	735
  SCENARIO 3 FUEL LEAK	'.	136
    Scenario Description: Fires due to fuel leaks on hot surfaces	136
    Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:	136
    Conclusions Based on FMEA of Fuel Spills or Leaks	137
  SCENARIO 4: REFUELING-RELATED	138
    Scenario Description: Fires related to spilled fuel or refueling vapor	138
    Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:	138
    Conclusions Based on FMEA of Refueling-Related Safety	138
  SCENARIO 5: STORAGE AND SHUTDOWN	139
    Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:	739
    Conclusions Based on FMEA of Shutdown and Storage Safety	73P
  SCENARIO 6: IGNITION MISFIRE	140
    Scenario Description: Engine malfunction which results in an ignitable  mixture of unburnt fuel and air in the
    muffler.	140
    Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:	140
    Conclusions Based on FMEA of Ignition Misfire	141

-------
  SCENARIO 7: RICH OPERATION....,	142
    Scenario Description: Fire due to operation with richer than designed air-to-fuel ratio in engine or catalyst.
    	142
    Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:	142
    Conclusions Based on FMEA of Rich Operation	143

9.   SAFETY   ANALYSIS  OF SMALL   SI  ENGINE  EVAPORATIVE  EMISSIONS   CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES	144

  A.    CURRENT TECHNOLOGY	144
    Fuel Evaporative Emissions	:	144
    NHH Equipment	,	144
    HH Equipment	145
  B. CURRENT SAFETY STANDARDS	145
  C. IN-USE SAFETY EXPERIENCE	146
    NHH Equipment	146
    HH Equipment	146
  D. EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN AND SAFETY	147
    NHH Equipment	147
    HH Equipment	:	150
  E. CONCLUSION	151

10. SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR MARINE SI	:.	152

    Marine Engines	152
    Marine Vessel Fvel Systems	153
  B. IN-USE SAFETY EXPERIENCE	153
    Marine Engines and Vessels	153
  C. CURRENT SAFETY STANDARDS	'.	154
    Marine Engines	154
    Marine Vessel Fuel Systems	155
  D. EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN	156
    Marine Engines	156
    Marine Auxiliary Engines	156
    Marine Vessels	755
    Fuel tanks	157
    Diurnal Emissions Control	158
  E. ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY IMPACT OF NEW EMISSION STANDARDS	158
    New Exhaust Emission Standards for OB/P WC	158
    New Exhaust Emission Standards for Marine Auxiliary Generators	158
    Fuel Hose Permeation Standards	759
    Fuel Tank Permeation Standards	'.	160
 "   Fuel Tank Diurnal Emission Control Standards	160
  F. CONCLUSION	161

APPENDIX A- BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INFRARED THERMAL IMAGING		162

  IR TEMPERATURE BASICS	162
  CONDUCTIVE HEAT TRANSFER	162
  CONVECTIVE HEAT TRANSFER	162
  RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER	162
  How THE IR FLEXCAM T AND IR SNAPSHOT CAMERA'S CONVERT RADIANCE TO TEMPERATURE	163

APPENDIX B: EMISSIONS RESULTS.....;		165

APPENDIX C - FMEA OF SMALL SI EQUIPMENT AND ENGINES	168
4

-------
List of Acronyms

ABYC         American Boating and Yacht Council
ANSI          American National Standards Institute
ASAE          American Society of Agricultural Engineers
ASTM         American Society for Testing and Materials
BP            Barometric Pressure
°C             Degrees Celsius
CAA           Clean Air Act
CAD           Crank Angle Degrees
CARB          California Air Resources Board
Class I          Nonhandheld Engines <225cc
Class II         Nonhandheld Engines >225cc and less than 19kW
CO            Carbon monoxide
CFR           Code of Federal Regulations
CPSC          Consumer Product Safety Commission
cpsi            Cells per square inch
CVS           Constant Volume Sampler
E85            mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline
ECU           Engine  Control Unit
EFI            Electronic Fuel Injection
EPA           Environmental Protection Agency
ETC           Electronic Throttle Control
EVOH         Ethyl Vinyl Alcohol
°F             Degrees Fahrenheit
FMEA         Failure  Modes and Effects Analysis
FR            Federal Register
g/kW-hr        Grams per kilowatt hour
HC            Hydrocarbons
HOPE          High-Density Polyethylene
NHH           Non-handheld
HH            Handheld
hp             Horsepower
INDP          In-Depth Investigations (CPSC database)
IPII            Injury/Potential Injury Incident (CPSC database)
IR             Infrared
ISO            International Standards Organization
kW            Kilowatt
LEV .          Low Emission Vehicle
MAP           Manifold Absolute Pressure
MIL           Malfunction Indicator Light
NEISS         National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (CPSC database)
NIST           National Institute of Standards and Testing
NFIRS         National Fire Incident Reporting System
NFPA          National Fire Protection  Association
NOx           Oxides  of nitrogen
NVFEL        National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
OB            Outboard
OEM           Original Equipment Manufacturers
OHV           Overhead Valve
OPEI           Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
Pd             Palladium
PGM           Platinum Group Metal
Ph2            Phase 2

-------
Ph3            Phase 3
Pt             Platinum
PWC           Personal Water Craft
Rh             Rhodium
ROM           Ride On Mower
RPN           Risk Priority Number
SAE           Society of Automotive Engineers
SD/1           Stemdrive/Inboard
SI             Spark Ignition
SwRI           Southwest Research Institute
TDC           Top dead  center
TPS           Throttle Position Sensor
UL            Underwriters Laboratory
US            United States
USDA         United States Department of Agriculture
USCG         United States Coast Guard
VR            Variable Reluctance
WBM          Walk Behind Mower
WOT           Wide open throttle
XLPE          Cross-link polyethylene
                                                                                                            i

-------
1.      Introduction
A.
BACKGROUND
Over the past 15 years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented emission control programs
for nonroad engines and equipment. Section 213  of the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA  to set  emission
standards for nonroad engines and equipment that  "achieve the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable
through the application  of technology which the Administrator determines will  be available for the engines or
vehicles to  which such standards  shall  apply giving appropriate  consideration  to the  cost of applying such
technology within the period of time available to manufacturers and to noise, energy, and safety factors associated
with the application of  such technology."  Section 216 of the CAA defines  a nonroad  engine  as  "an internal
combustion  engine (including the fuel system) that is not used in a motor vehicle or a  vehicle  used solely for
competition." Nonroad engines are used in a variety of nonroad vehicles and equipment and are primarily powered
by diesel or gasoline. Gasoline-powered engines are frequently referred to as spark-ignition  (SI) engines.

EPA's nonroad program regulates  nonroad engines and equipment in seven general engine categories.  These
categories are further divided into various subcategories or groups depending on what approach is most  useful in
distinguishing the particular product and application from others.  For example, certain subcategories describe an
engine's or an equipment's application (i.e. snowmobile, personal watercraft, nonhandheld  equipment) while other
subcategories include engines of a certain size (i.e. SI engines < 19kW (25hp)).  Therefore,  each of these seven
engine categories contains further divisions, including engines and equipment with a wide  range of horsepower or
performance characteristics.  Table  1-1 illustrates the nonroad program and its applicable regulations  for these
various subcategories.

                                  Table 1-1 EPA Nonroad Engine Program
Engine Categories
1 . Locomotives engines
2. Marine diesel engines
3, Other nonroad diesel engines
4. Marine SI engines
5. Recreational vehicle SI engines
6. Small SI engines (SI engines < 19
kW (or < 30 kW if total
displacement is < 1 liter))
a. Handheld (HH)
b. Honhandhled (NHH)
7. Large SI engines (SI engines > 19
kW (or > 30 kW if total
displacement is < 1 liter))
Applicable
Regulations
40CFRPart92
40 CFR Part 94
40 CFR Parts 89,
1039
40 CFR Part 91
40 CFR Part 1051
40 CFR Part 90
40 CFR Part 1048
Date of Last
Significant Rule
April 16, 1998
December 29,
1999
June 29, 2004
October 4, 1996
November 8, 2002
a. Jan 12. 2004
b.Mar 30,1999
November 8, 2002
Code of Federal
Regulation
Citation
63 FR 18978
64 FR 73300
69 FR 38958
61 FR 52088
67 FR 68242
a. 69 FR 1824
b.64FR!5208
67 FR 68242
Applicable
Standards
Exhaust
Exhaust
Exhaust
Exhaust
Exhaust &
Evaporative
Exhaust
Exhaust &
Evaporative
Section 428(b) of the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill (PL 108-199) required EPA to consider new emission
standards for nonroad SI engines under 50 horsepower (hp). For purposes of this discussion, 50 hp is about 37
kilowatts (kW). The first three categories in Table  1-1  are only diesel engines so they are not covered by the

-------
 provisions. As shown below, the remaining four categories are all SI engines, with all or at least some or their
• product offerings below 50 hp.
                                 Table 1-2 SI Engine HP Distribution
SI Engine Category
Marine SI
Recreational SI
Small SI
Large SI
Engine Subcategory
Outboard
Personal Watercraft
Sterndrive/Inboard
All Terrain Vehicle
Off-Highway Motorcycle
Snowmobile
Handheld
Nonhandheld
None
Estimated % < 50 hp
65
<5
0
100
100
2
100
100
40
 Standards for Marine SI engines were last promulgated in 1996 and are presently ending their phase-in period.
 Recreational SI engine standards were promulgated in 2002, and are beginning their phase-in in 2006. Small SI
 engine standards for nonhandheld (NHH) engines (containing Classes I and II) were last promulgated in 1999 and
 finish their phase-in next year, 2007. Standards for handheld (HH) (containing Classes II1-V) are catalyst-based in
 many cases and the implementation approach was revised in a 2004 technology review.  These engines do not
 complete their phase-in until  2010.  Finally, two phases of standards for Large  SI engines were promulgated in
 2002, with catalyst-based standards and a new test cycle required for 2007,

 Based on its assessment of these categories, EPA intends to propose revisions to the emission standards for Marine
 SI engines and Small SI NHH engines and equipment for exhaust and evaporative controls and HH equipment for
 evaporative controls. Under section 205 of the appropriations bill funding EPA for fiscal year 2006 (section 205 of
 PL 109-54) EPA, in coordination with other appropriate federal agencies, must complete and publish a technical
 study analyzing the potential safety issues associated with the proposed standards for engines <50hp, including the
 risk of fire and  burn to consumers. The technical study is to be completed and published before the publication of
 the notice of proposed rulemaking. This safety study satisfies the requirements of this provision and will also be part
 of the supporting information in the rulemaking.

 The  safety analysis for NHH exhaust emissions is presented in Chapters 3 through 8.  The safely analysis for
 evaporative control requirements for NHH and HH are presented in Chapter 9 and for Marine SI requirements in
 Chapter 10. The proposed rule is also expected to include the first ever exhaust and evaporative emission standards
 for sterndrive/inboard (SD/I) engines and vessels as part of our authority under section 213. However, they are not
 addressed in this safety study as they are all over 50hp.   The impact on safety of new standards for these engines
 and vessels will be addressed in the proposal.

 As part of the assessment for the rulemaking, EPA evaluated the performance of the current technology for NHH
 engines and equipment (studies for HH and Marine  SI were not conducted).  EPA's initial  efforts focused on
 developing a baseline for emissions and general engine performance so that we could assess the potential for new
                                                    10

-------
emission standards for engines and equipment in this  category. This process involved laboratory  and field
evaluations of the current engines and equipment.  As part of this assessment EPA also reviewed engineering
information and data on existing engine designs and their emissions performance. Using information and experience
gathered in  this effort, EPA initiated a testing program designed to evaluate improvements to the  emissions
performance of these gasoline engines and to assess the potential safety impacts associated with the use of more
advanced emission control technology.

The technology approaches  assessed by EPA for meeting  the  new standards for Class 1  (< 225cc engine
displacement) and Class II  (>225 cc) NHH engines include exhaust catalyst aftertreatment and improvements to
engine and fuel system designs.  In addition to its own testing and development effort, EPA also met with engine
and equipment manufacturers to  better  understand their  designs and technology and to determine the state of
technological progress  beyond  EPA's Phase  2 standards. EPA's  research,  development, and testing evaluation
efforts included laboratory and real world field assessments of potential technology applications.  In the course of
this work EPA conducted both thorough evaluations of  laboratory and  field emissions performance as well as
separate assessments of safety issues. The engines EPA used for developing these improved emissions factors were
maintained based on manufacturer specifications. Every engine in the field evaluation was maintained at a level at
least as rigorous as called for in the manufacturer's requirements.

The central focus of our safety assessments for NHH engine exhaust standards has been to understand the potential
incremental safety impact of the application of catalyst-based exhaust emission  controls on Class I and Class II
engines. EPA's engineering analysis of the safety of exhaust and evaporative emission controls for NHH and HH
engines and equipment  focused on five areas:

    1.  Engineering analysis and emission testing  of current technology Class I and Class II engines and Class I
        and Class  II engines with properly designed emission control systems capable of achieving exhaust
        emission reductions beyond the Phase 2 standards  (catalyst-based advanced prototype systems).

    2.  Exhaust  emission  and  safety  assessment testing  of Class I  and Class  II engines  in both a  stock
        configuration and equipped with advanced prototype emission control systems.  Engines were tested both
        in the laboratory and in the field over a  broad  range of operating conditions; external exhaust system
        surface  temperatures were  measured using infrared thermal imaging while  temperatures for  lubricant,
        cylinder head and exhaust gases were measured using thermocouple probes.

    3.  Laboratory analysis of significant off-nominal  operating  conditions  that were  identified by engine
        manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and EPA staff.

    4.  Assessment of the potential safety impacts of evaporative emission control requirements.

    5.  The completion of design Failure Mode and Effects Analyses (FMEA) for Class I and Class II engines
        used in walk-behind and ride-on mowers and three process FMEAs  for consumer use of lawn equipment.
        These studies were conducted as an additional tool for identifying potential safety concerns in going from
        Phase 2 to potential Phase 3 standards.

With  regard to marine  SI, we focused on safety issues related to incorporating upgraded fuel systems and engine
modifications for both outboard  and personal watercraft engines.  We also assessed the  potential incremental safety
impacts of evaporative emission control requirements for marine SI vessels.

B.      OVERVIEW

The remainder of this report is comprised of nine chapters. Following this Introduction, Chapter 2 explains EPA's
basic approach to its assessment of the safety issue. Chapters 3  through 8 address only NHH engines. Chapter 3
gives background on small SI NHH engine technology, the relevant applicable safety standards, in-use experience
related to the safety concerns of interest.  Chapter 4 describes the safety issues and concerns raised by the various
parties and identified by EPA and identifies the scenarios  to be assessed along with the causal factors. Chapter 5
describes in detail the test methods employed by EPA while Chapter 6 presents the results of the testing.  Chapter 7
                                                   11

-------
describes the design and process FMEAs conducted by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and discusses the            ™
safety results in the context of potential Phase 3 standards.  Chapter 8 presents EPA's technical conclusions for the
Small SI engine category by assessing the concerns identified in Chapter 4 in light of the technical information and
analyses presented in  Chapters 5 through  7.   Chapter 9 addresses the evaporative  control  requirements for
equipment powered by Small SI engines. Finally, Chapter 10 assesses the potential safety impact evaporative and
exhaust emission standards for Marine SI engines and vessels as discussed above. The appendices to this report
contain relevant data and technical information referred to in the text.
                                                    12

-------
2.      EPA's Approach to Assessment of the Safety Issue
A.      SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT
As mandated by Section 205, this study addresses four subcategories of nonroad engines and equipment containing
SI engines under 50 hp for which EPA intends to propose revisions to the emission standards. These two categories
are commonly referred to as Small SI and Marine SI. As explained in Chapter 1, the four subcategories include HH
and NHH, in the Small SI engine category, and outboard and personal watercraft engines (OB/PWC), in the Marine
SI engine category. The study does not address the EPA categories where EPA is not intending to propose revisions
to the emission standards. This study also does not address safety issues concerning Marine SI vessels powered by
SD/I engines. EPA intends to propose exhaust and evaporative standards for this Marine SI subcategory. EPA will
address any safety concerns related to SD/I requirements as part of the proposed rule.

For Small SI and Marine SI we are considering new exhaust and/or evaporative emission standards. With regard to
the Small SI category we are considering new exhaust and evaporative standards for nonhandheld equipment and
new evaporative standards for  handheld equipment.   For Marine SI engines we are considering new exhaust and
evaporative standards for both outboard engines and personal watercraft.

B.      THE SMALL SI ENGINE ASSESSMENT

The small SI engines and equipment that we considered in this study have been commercially marketed for over 50
years, are commonly found across the United States (US), and have relatively frequent usage.  For example, EPA
estimates that there are over 52  million residential and commercial walk behind lawn mowers and ride-on lawn,
garden, and turf equipment in-use in the United States today.  EPA estimates that these are used about  3 billion
hours per year. Thus, there is a  large  amount of in-use experience with the performance of this equipment over time.
As successive generations of engines and equipment have entered the marketplace there have been improvements to
address consumer satisfaction,  performance, safety, and emissions, among other factors. Over this time, consumers
have had a variety of types of performance experiences with this equipment. In some cases problems are related to
engine or equipment design while in others they are related to human interactions. It is not uncommon for both
factors to contribute to a problem.

It is not the purpose of this study to review or generally assess safety or performance issues with current small SI
engines and equipment in-use.  This study instead looks at the incremental impact on safety of moving from current
Phase 2  standards to new Phase 3 hydrocarbon plus oxides of nitrogen (HC+NOx) exhaust emission standards for
nonhandheld Small SI Engines  which are nominally a 35-40 percent reduction over current Phase 2 emission
standards,  as well-as fuel evaporative emission  control requirements for all Small SI engines Although it was
necessary to understand the performance of Phase 2 products in order to fully characterize the baseline used for this
incremental safety analysis, this study does not assess and does not draw any conclusions on what safety risks, if
any, are presented by current equipment. Instead, EPA took current equipment as the baseline, and evaluated the
incremental impact on safety of moving from this baseline to equipment applying more advanced emissions control
technology.  The study does not address any issues  not related to the potential proposed rulemaking for  small SI
engines, such as concerns about carbon monoxide (CO) exposure or reftieling problems related to portable gasoline
containers.

C.      MARINE SI ASSESSMENT

EPA intends to propose revisions to the exhaust and evaporative emission standards for Marine SI engines. As with
Small SI engines, the study addresses the incremental impact on safety of going from the current EPA standards to
the standards under consideration. The study addresses both outboard engines and personal watercraft.
                                                  13

-------
14

-------
3.      Technical  Background on Nonhandheld  Engines

A.      CURRENTTECHNOLOGY

The scope of this study included Class I and Class II engine systems, which relate to residential walk-behind and
riding lawn mowers, respectively. Residential lawn mower equipment was chosen for the following reasons:

    1.   Lawn mowers and the closely-related category  of lawn tractors represent the largest categories of
        equipment using Class I and Class II nonroad SI engines. EPA estimates that over 47 million walk-behind
        mowers and ride-on lawn and turf equipment are in-use in the US today.

    2.   These equipment types represent the majority of sales for Small SI engines.

    3.   CPSC data indicates that more thermal burn injuries associated with lawn mowers occur than with other
        NHH  equipment; lawn  mowers  therefore represent the largest thermal burn  risk for these classes of
        engines.

    4.   General findings regarding advanced emission control technologies  for residential lawn  and garden
        equipment carry over to commercial lawn and turf care equipment as  well as  to other NHH equipment
        using  Class I and Class II engines.  Lawn  mower design  and  use characteristics pose unique safety
        implications not encountered by  other NHH equipment using these engines (i.e. a mower deck collects
        debris during operation whereas a pressure washer collects no debris).  Thus, other NHH equipment may
        employ similar advanced emission  control technologies for meeting the proposed standards without a
        corresponding concern regarding the safety issues analyzed in this study.

Information in EPA's nonroad emissions  model estimates suggests about  1.5 billion lawn mower use events per
year for residential  lawn care equipment.1  Much of the equipment is typically operated and refueled by the general
public. The equipment is operated  under conditions where  grass-clipping and similar debris are often  present,
particularly during side-discharge or mulching grass cutting operations. Refueling operations typically occur from
portable containers with no automatic cut-off, and can result in fuel spillage.

Class I product, mostly walk-behind mowers, are produced by both integrated and non-integrated manufacturers.
Integrated manufacturers make both  the engine and equipment, non-integrated manufacturers make only one of the
two. In almost all  cases the fuel tank and muffler are part of the Class  I engine when it leaves the engine
manufacturer. Based on manufacturer estimates provided as part of EPA's emission certification program,  there are
about 14 million Class I  and Class II engines produced per year. In Class II, which also has integrated and non-
integrated manufacturers, it is not  uncommon to have the fuel tank and/or muffler  added by the equipment
manufacturer.  According to the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), there were about 9 million lawn and
garden units produced in the 2005 model  year  with the remainder comprised primarily of pressure  washers,
generators, tillers, snow throwers, construction, and commercial equipment. Table  3-1 below shows the current
Phase 2 emission standards for  Class 1 and Class II engines.
                                                 15

-------
                                Table 3-1 EPA Phase 2 Emission Standards2
Engine Class
Class I
Class II
HC+NOx Standard
(g/kW-hr)
16.1
12.1
CO Standard
(g/kW-hr)
610
610
Final Phase-In Year
for Large
Manufacturers
2007
2005
Regulatory Useful
Life (hours)
125,250, or 500
250, 500, or 1000
Crankcase must be closed. The HC+NOx standards do not apply to engines used in snow equipment. Emission
averaging is allowed to meet the HC+NOx standard. There are no evaporative emission control requirements for
Class I or Class H. The useful life category is determined by the manufacturer.
EPA evaluated the incremental change in key safety parameters for the modification of lawn mowers and lawn
tractors from Phase 2 emissions  compliance to meeting potential Phase 3 HC+NOx emission standards of 10.0
g/kW-hr for Class I and 8.0 g/kW-hr for Class II.  These standards would be 35-40 percent more stringent than
Phase 2 emission standards on Federal certification fuel. The Phase 3 standards would not change the CO emission
standard for NHH engines.

The potential Phase 3 emission standards would also include measures for controlling fuel evaporative emission
requirements. While we looked at the full range of potential evaporative controls, our present program is focused on
fuel tank and fuel hose permeation emissions, running loss controls, and diffusion losses from freely vented fuel
caps. The fuel systems for Class I and Class II equipment consist of rubber fuel hoses and open-vented fuel tanks
which may be constructed out of metal or plastic. Based on information supplied by manufacturers we estimate that
about 80 percent of Class I  and 90 percent of Class II equipment are equipped with plastic fuel tanks. Fuel hoses
used today are  typically made  out  of inexpensive nitrile  rubber and there  are general industry  consensus
performance standards related to hoses which apply.

The following discussion explains the design elements for the type  of emission control technology that could be
used to achieve the potential Phase 3 emission standards discussed above.  These technical discussions and
information presented below are derived from more than two years of laboratory and field work conducted by EPA
in assessing current Phase 2  engine technology and developing prototype Phase 3 systems.

The North  American automotive  market is now entering its fourth decade of high-volume production of exhaust
catalysts for light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles since the introduction of catalysts on Chrysler vehicles in 1975.
With the advent of Federal Tier 2 and California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) II exhaust emission standards, Hght-
duty and medium-duty vehicles are equipped with catalysts and engine management systems that control NOx, HC,
and CO emissions with greater than 99 percent efficiency relative to previous, non-catalyst engines.

Class I and Class II nonroad SI engines face a number of engineering, safety, and cost challenges that can differ
substantially from those of light duty automotive applications. As a result, Class I and Class II exhaust emission
control systems differ from that of light-duty gasoline vehicles but share some  common elements with emission
control systems that are now being applied to small-displacement on-highway motorcycles.

In addition, Class I and II equipment can make use of the advances in materials technology and fuel system designs
that have been made  in the automotive industry over the past several decades. These approaches to improved fuel
containment are now being applied to other nonroad applications in anticipation of upcoming evaporative emission
standards.

Class I engines
                                                   16

-------
Class I engines typically are equipped with  integral exhaust and fuel systems and  are air-cooled.  Significant
applications include walk-behind lawn mowers (largest segment), pressure washers, generator sets and pumps.
There are both overhead valve (OHV) and side-valve (SV) engines used in Class I, but side-valve engines are the
predominant type in Class I, particularly in lawn mower applications. They currently represent about 60 percent of
Class I sales. Exhaust catalyst design for Class I engines must take into account several important factors that differ
from automotive applications:

    1.  Air-cooled engines run rich of stoichiometry to prevent overheating when under load. Because of this, CO
        and HC emissions can be high. Catalyst induced oxidation of a high percentage of available reactants in
        the exhaust in the presence of excess oxygen (i.e.,  lean of stoichiometric conditions) can result in highly
        exothermic exhaust reactions and increase heat rejection from the exhaust. For example, approximately 80
        to 90 percent of the energy available from catalyst-promoted exhaust reactions is via oxidation of CO.

    2.  Air-cooled engines have significant HC and NOx  emissions that are typically much higher on a brake-
        specific basis than water-cooled automotive engine types. Net heat available from HC oxidation and NOx
        reduction at rich of stoichiometric conditions is considerably less than that of oxidation of CO  at near
        stoichiometric or lean of stoichiometric conditions due to the much lower concentrations of NO and HC in
        the exhaust relative to CO.

    3.  Most Class I engines do not have I2-voIt DC electrical systems to power auxiliaries and instead are pull
        start.  Electronic controls relying on 12-volt DC power would be difficult to integrate onto Class I engines
        without a significant cost increase.

    4.  Most  Class I  engines  use  inexpensive stamped mufflers with internal  baffles.  Mufflers are typically
        integrated onto the engine and may or may not be placed in the path of cooling air from the cooling fan.

    5.  The regulatory emission test cycles (A-cycle, B-cycle), manufacturer's durability cycles and some limited
        in-use  operation  data  indicate that  emissions  control  should focus  primarily on  light and part load
        operation.

These factors would lead to exhaust catalyst designs for small engines mat should differ somewhat from those of
light duty gasoline vehicle exhaust catalysts.  Design elements specific to Class I Phase 3 exhaust catalysts would
include:

    1.  Catalyst substrate  volume would be  sized relatively small so  as to be space-velocity limited. Catalyst
        volume for Class  I Phase  3  engines would be approximately 10 to  25 percent of the engine cylinder
        displacement, depending on cell count, engine-out emission levels, and  oil consumption. Catalyst substrate
        sizes would be compact, with typical  catalyst substrate volumes  of approximately 1 to 3 cubic inches. This
        would  effectively  limit mass transport to catalyst  sites at moderate-to-high load conditions and reduce
        exothermic reactions occurring when  exhaust temperature is highest. This is nearly the opposite of the case
        of typical automotive  catalyst designs.   Automotive catalyst volume is typically 50  to 100  percent of
        cylinder displacement, with the chief constraints on catalyst volume being packaging and cold-start light-
        off performance.

    2.  Catalyst precious metal loading (Pt-platinum, Pd-palladium, Rh-rhodium) would be kept relatively low,
        and formulations would favor NOx  and HC selectivity over CO selectivity.  We estimate that typical
        loading ratios for Phase 3 would be approximately in the range of 30 to 50 g/ft3 (approximately 50 percent
        of typical automotive loadings at light-duty vehicle  Tier 2 emission levels) and can be Pt:Rh, Pd:Rh or tri-
        metallic.  Tri-metallic platinum group metal (PGM) loadings that replace a significant fraction of Pt with
        Pd would be less selective for CO oxidation and would also reduce the  cost of the catalyst. Loading ratios
        would  be similar or higher  in Rh than what is typically used for automotive applications (20-25 percent of
        the total PGM mass in small SI) to improve NOx selectivity, improve  rich of stoichiometry HC reactions
        and reduce CO selectivity.
                                                    17

-------
    3.  Catalysts would be integrated into the muffler design.  Incorporating the catalyst into the muffler would            ™
        reduce surface temperatures,  and would provide more surface area for heat rejection. This is nearly the
        opposite of design  practice used for  automotive systems, which generally try to limit heat rejection to
        improve cold-start light-off performance. The design for Class I Phase 3 engines would  have somewhat
        higher surface area and somewhat larger volume than many current Class I muffler designs in order to
        promote exhaust heat rejection  and to package the catalyst,  but would be similar  to some higher-end
        "quiet" Class 1 muffler designs.  Appropriately positioned stamped heat-shielding and touch guards would
        be integrated into Class 1 Phase 3 catalyst-muffler designs in  a manner similar to many  Class I Phase 2
        mufflers;   A degree of heat rejection would be available via forced convection from the  cooling fan,
        downstream of cooling for the cylinder and  cylinder head.  This is the case with many current muffler
        designs.  Heat rejection to catalyst muffler surfaces to minimize "hot spots" can also be enhanced internally
        by turning the  flow through multiple chambers and baffles that serve as sound attenuation within the
        muffler, similar to the designs used with catalyst-equipped lawn mowers sold in Sweden and Germany.

    4.  Many Class 1 Phase 3 catalysts would include passive secondary air injection to enhance catalyst efficiency
        and allow the use of smaller  catalyst volumes.  Incorporation  of passive secondary air allows halving of
        catalyst substrate volume  for  the same catalyst efficiency over the regulatory cycle. A system for Class I
        Phase 3 engines would be sized small enough to provide minimal change in exhaust stoichiometry at high
        load conditions so as to limit heat rejection, but would be provide approximately 0.5 to 1.0 points of air-to-
        fuel  ratio change at conditions of SO  percent of peak torque and below in order to lower HC emissions
        effectively  in engines operating at air-to-fuel ratios similar to those of current  Class I Phase 2 engines.
        Passive secondary air systems are preferred. Mechanical or electrical air pumps are not necessary.  Passive
        systems include stamped  or drawn Venturis or ejectors integrated into the muffler, some of which may
        incorporate an air check-valve, depending on the application. Pulse-air injection is also a form of passive
        secondary  air injection.   Pulse  air draws air into the exhaust port through a check-valve  immediately
        following the closure of the exhaust valve.  Active secondary air (air pump) systems were not considered in
        this  analysis since  they may be cost prohibitive for use in Class 1 applications due to the need for a             ^
        mechanical accessory drive or 12-volt DC power.                                                                 •

    5.  Class I engines are  typically turned off via a simple circuit that grounds the input side of the ignition coil.
        Temperature fail-safe capability  would, if appropriate, can be incorporated into the engine by installing a
        bimetal thermal switch in  parallel with the ignition grounding circuit used for turning the engine off. The
        switch can be of the inexpensive bimetal disc  type in wide-spread use in numerous consumer products
        (furnaces, water-heaters, ovens, hair dryers,  etc.).  To reduce cost, the bimetal switch could be  a non-
        contact switch mounted to the engine immediately behind the muffler, similar to the installation of bimetal
        sensors currently used to actuate automatic chokes on current Phase 2 Class I lawn mower engines.

Class II engines

Almost all Class II engines are air-cooled. Unlike Class 1 engines, Class II engines are not typically equipped with
integral exhaust  systems and  fuel tanks.   Significant applications  include  lawn tractors (largest segment),
commercial turf equipment,  generator sets and pumps.  Overhead valve engines have largely replaced side-valve
engines in Class II,  with the few remaining side-valve engines certifying to the Phase II standards  using emissions
credits or being used in snow thrower type applications where the HC+NOx standards do not apply. Class II engines
are typically built more robustly than Class I engines. They often use cast-iron cylinder liners, may use either splash
lubrication or full-pressure  lubrication,  employ high volume  cooling fans and in  some cases, use  significant
shrouding to  direct  cooling air. Exhaust catalyst design practice for Class II engines will differ depending on the
level of emission control.  Class II engine designs are more suitable for higher-efficiency emission control systems
than most Class I engine designs. The design factors are somewhat similar to Class 1:

    1.  Class II engines are mostly air-cooled, and thus must run rich of stoichiometry at high  loads. The ability to
        operate at  air-to-rue) ratios rich of stoichiometry at high load may be more critical for some Class  II
        engines titan for Class I  engines  due to the longer useful life requirements in Class II.   The engines
        incorporate more advanced fuel  metering and spark control than is typical in Class I, in order to meet the
        more stringent Class II Phase 2 emission standards (12.1 g/kW-hr HC+NOx in Class II versus 16.1 g/kW-


                                                    18

-------
        hr in Class I)-  The heat energy available from CO oxidation is typically somewhat less than the case in
        Class I because of slightly lower average emission rates.

    2.  As with Class  I engines, air-cooled Class II engines have significant HC and NOx emissions that are
        typically much  higher on a brake-specific basis than water-cooled automotive engine types, but generally
        with a somewhat higher  fraction of NOx  in the total regulated HC+NOx emissions and  lower CO
        emissions than.is the case for Class I engines.

    3.  Most Class II engines are equipped with 12-volt DC electrical systems for starting.  Electronic controls
        relying on 12-volt DC power could be integrated into Class II engine designs.  Low-cost electronic engine
        management systems are extensively used in  motor scooter applications in Europe and Asia.  Both Kohler
        and Honda have  introduced Class I! engines in North America that use electronic engine management
        systems.

    4,  Class II engines use inexpensive stamped mufflers with internal baffles similar to Class I, but the mufflers
        are often not integrated  onto the engine design and may be remote mounted in a manner more typical of
        automotive mufflers.  Class II mufflers are  often not placed in the direct path  of cooling air from the
        cooling fan.

    5.  As with Class  I, the regulatory  cycles (A-cycle, B-cycle), manufacturer's durability cycles and  some
        limited in-use operation data indicate that emissions control should  focus primarily on tight and part load
        operation.

Taking these factors into account would point towards exhaust catalyst designs that differ  from those of light duty
gasoline exhaust catalysts and differ in some cases from  Class  I systems.  Elements specific to Class II Phase 3
emission control system  design using carburetor fuel systems would include:

    1.  Catalyst substrate volume would be sized relatively small  so as to be space-velocity limited.  Catalyst
        volume for Class II Phase 3 engines  would be approximately 33-50  percent  of the engine cylinder
        displacement, depending on cell  count, engine-out emission levels, oil consumption and the useful life
        hours to which  the engine's emissions are certified. Catalyst substrate sizes would be very compact within
        typical mufflers used in Class II, with typical catalyst substrate volumes of approximately 3 to  12  cubic
        inches.  This would effectively limit mass transport to catalyst sites at moderate-to-high load conditions
        and reduce exothermic reactions occurring when exhaust temperature is highest.

    2.  Catalyst precious metal loading would be kept relatively low, and formulations would favor NOx and HC
        selectivity over CO selectivity to minimize heat concerns. We estimate that typical loading ratios for Phase
        3 would be approximately in the range of 30 to 50 g/ft3 (approximately 50 percent of typical automotive
        loadings) and could be Pt:Rh, Pd:Rh or tri-metallic. Tri-metallic PGM loadings that replace a significant
        fraction of Pt with Pd would be  less selective for CO oxidation and would also reduce the cost of the
        catalyst.  Loading ratios would be similar or higher in Rh than what is typically used for automotive
        applications (20-25 percent of the total PGM mass in small SI).

    3.  Catalysts would be integrated into the muffler design.  Incorporating the catalyst into the muffler would
        reduce surface temperatures relative to the use of a separate catalyst component. The catalyst for Class II
        Phase 3 engines would be  integrated into mufflers that are similar  in volume to today's Class II Phase 2
        mufflers.  Appropriately positioned  stamped heat-shielding and touch guards would  be  integrated into
        Class II Phase 3 catalyst-muffler designs in a manner similar to current product. Class II engines typically
        have a much  higher volume of cooling air available downstream of the cylinder than Class I engines.  Heat
        rejection from the cylinder and cylinder head increases the temperature of the cooling air, but it is still
        sufficiently below the temperature of exhaust system components to allow its use for forced cooling.  Thus
        a degree of heat rejection would be available via forced convective cooling of exhaust components via the
        cooling fan. However, this  would require some additional ducting to supply cooling air to exhaust system
        surfaces along with careful layout of engine  and exhaust components within the design of the equipment
        that it is used to power. Integrated catalyst-mufflers can also use exhaust energy for ejector cooling (see
                                                    19

-------
        chapter 6).  Heat rejection to .catalyst muffler surfaces to minimize "hot spots" can also be enhanced
        internally by turning the flow through multiple chambers and baffles that serve as sound attenuation within
        the muffler.

    4.  Some applications may include secondary air injection to enhance catalyst efficiency.   Incorporation of
        passive secondary air allows halving of catalyst substrate volume for the same catalyst efficiency over the
        regulatory cycle. In many cases, this may not be necessary due to the lower engine-out emissions of Class
        II engines.  In cases where  secondary air  is used, it could either  be a passive system similar to the
        previously  described Class I  systems, or an  active system with an engine driven pump.  Pump drive for
        active systems could be  either 12-volt DC electric or via crankcase pulse, and pump actuation could be
        actively controlled using an electric solenoid or solenoid valve. The use of active systems is an option but
        seems unlikely.

    5.  Class II engines are typically  turned off via a simple circuit that grounds the input side of the ignition coil.
        As with Class I engines temperature fail-safe capability could be incorporated into the engine by installing
        a bimetal thermal switch in parallel with the ignition grounding circuit used for turning the  engine off,
        although application of this may not be suitable for use with ride-on equipment.

    6.  Higher catalyst efficiency, considerably lower exhaust emissions levels, and improved  fuel consumption
        are possible with Class II engines, but temperature considerations might necessitate the use of electronic
        engine management and  open-loop fuel injections systems. In such a case, the design and integration of
        the emission control system  would more closely resemble automotive applications, but stilt with some
        differences.

Elements specific to Class II Phase 3 emission control system design using electronic engine management to reduce
emissions beyond the nominal 35 percent reduction target would include:

    1.  Electronic fuel and spark control.  Fuel metering would be via a low-cost open-loop fuel injection system
        similar to systems currently in production for motor scooters in Europe and Asia.  Such systems use far
        fewer  sensors and components  and  simpler  Engine  Control Units (ECU)  than typical  automotive
        applications. Open loop  fuel  mapping can be based on feedback of manifold absolute pressure  (MAP) and
        engine oil temperature, with injection timing based on a magnetic signal from the flywheel or an inductive
        signal from the ignition system. Air-to-fuel ratio and spark timing can also be tailored at moderate to light-
        load conditions to favor engine-out control of HC and CO emissions while still operating sufficiently rich
        of stoichiometry to allow good NOx conversion over the catalyst.  Such  a control strategy would reduce
        heat rejection from the catalyst and provide  improved engine protection and reduced exhaust temperature
        at high-load conditions. Secondary air injection into the exhaust would not be necessary.

    2.  Larger catalyst volume with  higher precious metal loading.  Improved air-to-fuel ratio  and spark control
        allows the use of larger catalyst volumes (50 to 75 percent of engine displacement) with a higher precious
        metal loading than is possible with carbureted engines that have higher engine-out CO levels at light to
        moderate loads.  The advanced engine control system discussed in item 1  above would reduce engine out
        CO emissions and thus catalyst exotherms related to further CO oxidation.

    3.  Catalysts integrated into  the muffler design.  Catalysts would be integrated into  mufflers similar in design
        to the systems described for  carbureted Class 11 engines.  Muffler volume would be similar to  existing
        designs.

    4.  Misfire detection software would be integrated into the ECU that could:

            a.    notify the user that engine servicing is necessary via illumination of a malfunction indicator light
                 (MIL);

            b.   place the engine in a "limp mode" in the event that an engine operating condition is encountered
                 that has potential safety, engine durability, or emission control system durability implications:
                                                    20

-------
            c.   could shut-down the engine under extreme circumstances.

            d.   ECU software could also integrate an input from a bimetal thermal switch for MIL illumination,
                "limp mode" initiation, or engine shut-down.

B.      CURRENT SAFETY STANDARDS

An appendix to the SwRI report lists over 30 mandatory and voluntary standards which are, to varying degrees,
applicable to small SI equipment and in some cases specifically to nonhandheld engines.' The majority of these are
voluntary American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards. US
Department  of Agriculture (USDA)  requirements  are  primarily applicable to handheld equipment such as
chainsaws. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), International Standards Organization (ISO), and
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) all have surface temperature requirements.

The existing ANSI standards for turf care equipment standards  are sponsored by the Outdoor Power Equipment
Institute. These ANSI standards address engine and equipment safety for small gasoline engines. The predominant
standards followed by the Class I and Class II engine and equipment manufacturers are ANSI B7I.1, American
National Standard for Consumer Turf Care Equipment-Walk-Behind Mowers and Ride-On Machines with Mowers-
Safety Specifications and ANSI B71.4, American National Standard for Commercial Turf Care Equipment - Safety
Specification for Consumer Lawn Care and Commercial Lawn Care Equipment.3'4  They are designed to address
operator and by-stander safety. The ANSI standards apply to the engine and exhaust system as well as the complete
equipment product.  Within the ANSI standards for residential lawn care equipment, there are three sections that
discuss  touch burn safety and prevention of fuel ignition during  refueling, with two sections referring to walk-
behind mowers and one section referring to ride-on lawn equipment.

    •   From ANSI  B 71.1, Part II: Walk-Behind Mowers: .American National Standard for Consumer Turf Care
        Equipment-Walk-Behind  Mowers and Ride-On Machines with Mowers-Safety  Specifications,  Part II:
        Walk-Behind Mowers:

            o   "5.2 Heat protection - A guard or shield shall be provided to  prevent inadvertent contact with any
                exposed components that are hot and may cause burns during normal starting and operation of the
                machine."

            o   "5.3 Fuel ignition protection - Overflow gasoline shall be diverted away from the muffler outlet
                area."

    •   From ANSI B  71.1, Part HI: Ride-on mowers, lever steer mowers,  lawn tractors, and lawn  and garden
        tractors:

            o   "15.2 Heat protection - A guard or shield shall be provided to prevent inadvertent contact with
                any exposed components that  are hot and may cause bums during normal starting, mounting, and
                operation of the machine."

    •   From ANSI B 71.4,  Figure 3, American National Standard for Commercial Turf Care Equipment - Safety
        Specification,  In section 4.2.4, Operation, Service, Maintenance Instruction (figure 3), the following
        information is required in the instruction manual:

            o   Clean grass and debris from cutting units, drives, mufflers, and engine to help  prevent fires. Clean
                up oil or fuel spillage.           '

            o  j Let engine cool before storing and do not store near flame.
a The SwRI report and its appendices are in located in Appendix C of this study.
                                                  21

-------
            o   Shut off fuel while storing or transporting. Do not store fuel near flames or drain indoors.

In general these ANSI  standards primarily focus on safety labeling, operator instructions, manuals, and a series of
safety tests regarding equipment operation, mower deck safety, prevention of ejection of objects from the deck and
equipment maneuverability.  No design standards or surface temperature criteria are specified, nor are standardized
test procedures provided for fire or touch  burn safety for lawn care equipment.  There are no ANSI standards
specific to fuel tanks or fuel hoses.

    •   ASAE Standard S440.3 Safety for  Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment5  addresses hot surfaces in
        section 9 stating:

            o   9.1.7  Hot  surfaces (engine, hydraulic, transmission, etc) that exceed  a temperature of 90°C
                (194°F) for nonmetallic surfaces, or  80°C (176°F) for metallic  parts while operating at 2l°C
                (70°F), except surfaces of equipment intended primarily  for winter use, which shall  be  at 5°C
                (41°F). All surfaces which exceed 65.5°C (150°F) at 21°C  (70°F) ambient and which might be
                contacted by  the operator during normal  starting, mounting,  operating, or refueling shall  be
                indicated by a safety sign located on or adjacent to the surface.

    •   ISO standard 5395 section 2.2.3 addresses heat protection stating6:

            o   A guard or shield shall be provided to prevent accidental contact with any exposed engine exhaust
                components greater than 10 cm2 and with a hot surface temperature greater than 80° C at 20° C
                (+/- 3°C) ambient temperature during normal operation of the machine.

    •   ASTM Standard C1055-03, the Standard Guide for Heated System  Surface Conditions that Produce
        Contact Burn Injuries  recommends first determining the  acceptable contact time and  level of  burn
        severity7.  They list an acceptable contact time of 5 seconds for industrial processes and 60 seconds for
        consumer items.  The  maximum operating surface  temperature can then be derived from two equations
        given  in the standard.  A recommendation to install jacketing or insulation  is made if the injury  level
        exceeds the chosen criteria; a redesign to the system is recommended if the  criteria still cannot be met after
        installing protective measures. Nominally  a value of 70°C is established as a level above which action is
        necessary.

The CPSC issued a regulation,  16 CFR Part 1205, to prevent users and bystanders  from coming into contact with
mower blades8. There are no Federal regulations, standards, or test procedures related to addressing fire or burn risk
with residential lawn equipment.

 There are machine standards for noise and  other operator and by-stander impacting characteristics in the European
Machinery Directives.  These machine  standards are referred to during the engine design process.  Most of the
machine standards focus on the safety of the cutting blades.    There are also installed engine operating tests
designed to address heat exposure of stationary  or parked tractors. These specifically focus on grass browning and
surface temperature tests. These tests involve dumping the engine load and either letting the engine idle for two to
three minutes or shutting the engine off. These tests are typically designed to address the level of distress caused to
the grass.    >

There are a range of threshold temperature specifications that equipment manufacturers  require of their engine
suppliers for surface temperatures and exhaust temperatures.  Most temperature requirements are for functionality
rather than for safety. These include issues  related to ventilation, tire side wall heating (for exhaust exiting near the
rubber front tires), and  oil degradation protection.

In the same vein, it should be noted that in discussions with EPA all engine and equipment manufacturers indicated
that they have various  proprietary tests they use to address in-use  safety. These are applied when engines and fuel
systems are completed by the original  engine manufacturer, and it is often the case that the engine manufacturer
                                                    22

-------
works  with  and advises  the  equipment manufacturer on safety  specifications and requirements  for the safe
application of engines, mufflers, and fuel tanks as appropriate.

C.      IN-USE SAFETY EXPERIENCE

Assessing incremental impact on safety risk from applying more advanced emission control technology requires a
thorough understanding of the problems and  in-use safety experience with current products. To  conduct this
assessment EPA coordinated closely with CPSC. The staff of CPSC provided copies of relevant CPSC technical
reports and provided detail and synopses of relevant information from four key databases. EPA also reviewed
CPSC's public website which contained information on voluntary recall actions.

The technical reports provided by CPSC include the following:

    •   U.S. Consumer Product  Safety Commission.  (2004). Hazard Analysis of Power  Lawn Mower  Studies
        Calendar Years 2003 and 1993. Washington DC: Adler, P.;  Schroeder, T.9

        This report examined data collected from 1983  through 1993 to evaluate the effectiveness of the mandatory
        standard addressing blade contact injuries and the ride mower portion of the voluntary AMSI/OPEI B71.1.
        Blade-contact and  thrown  object hazards were  examined  with walk behind  and  ride-on mowers.
        Additionally, rolling/tipping over hazard was examined in ride-on mowers.  All  other hazards, including
        hot  surfaces contact and fire/flame, were categorized as 'other'  and were not further addressed by this
        report.

    •   U.S. Consumer  Product Safety  Commission.  (2003). Hazard Screening Report Yard  and  Garden
        Equipment (Product Codes 1400-1464). Washington DC: Rutherford, G., Marcy, N., Mills, A.'°

        This report compared the risk of different products within the Yard and Garden Equipment category based
        on 2001 injury  data and 2000 death data. Lawn mowers represented the largest cost associated with injury
       • and deaths. A common hazard among all yard and garden equipment was a leaking  fuel system which was
        mostly reported with riding mowers and walk behind mowers.  No further information was given  specific
        to lawn mowers.

    •   U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  (1993). Ride-On  Mower  Hazard Analysis  (1987-1990).
        Washington DC: Adler, P.11

        This report provides  a detailed hazard analysis of lawn mowers  for reporting  periods  1987-1990; a
        comparison was made with  lawn mower hazard patterns from  1983-1986. Table 6 indicates that for the
        periods 1983-86  and  1987-90, 5-6 percent of all injuries  associated with ride-on  mowers treated in US
        hospital emergency rooms are burns.  Lacerations and burns from a hot surface contact occurred to hands
        and accounted for 77 percent of all hand injuries.

    •   U.S. Consumer Product  Safety Commission.  (1993).  Deaths Related to Ride-On Mowers: 1987-1990.
        Washington DC: David, J. A.12

        A follow-up report to CPSC Rider-On Mower Hazard Analysis (1987-1990) indicates that for the period
        1987-1990, 2.5 percent  of deaths were  fire-related and  indicates  the  fraction of fire-related  hospital
        emergency room visits to  be five percent  for  1983-1986 and two percent for 1987-1990., There are
        approximately 850 hospital visits related to touching hot surfaces, and nine deaths related to fire for ride-on
        mowers for the period 1987-1990. It should be noted that these figures cover only ride-on mowers.

    •   U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (1988). Hazard Analysis, Ride-On Mowers. Washington DC:
        Smith, E.13
                                                  23

-------
        This report gives an estimated 6 percent of in-use injuries as being thermal-bum related, such as a hot
        muffler or exhaust pipe. In most cases the engine was reported as being off, but the mower was still in use,
        which can include making repairs, maintenance, fueling, getting on/off, lifting, pushing, or other.

    •   U.S. Consumer Product Safely Commission.  Thermal Bum Contact-Related Injuries Associated with
        Gasoline-Engine Powered Equipment, 1990-19981. Washington DC: Adler, P.14

        This report discusses thermal burns exclusively from contact related injuries on gasoline engine powered
        equipment for the period 1990 - 1998. This report discusses gasoline engine powered equipment such as
        walk behind  and riding  mowers, chainsaws, rotary tillers,  brush cutters.   A  contact burn  injury is
        characterized  by inadvertent contact with hot  components or surfaces on the equipment. Based on the
        National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) database there were an estimated average of 2,200
        contact burn injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms during the 9 year period.  Of these, 17
        percent were  related to the lower arm/leg and 68 percent were on the hand  or finger.  First and  second
        degree burns  are 53 percent of the total. Table 3 of this report indicates mat 41 percent of burns were
        related to the  muffler,  13 percent related to the exhaust tailpipe, 13 percent related to engine  components,
        and 33 percent related to other surfaces.  Muffler contact thermal burns were the  dominant risk in all the
        engine-powered equipment discussed in this report.

In addition, CPSC provided EPA focused extracts related to fire and burn incidents from four different databases.

    1.   CPSC's NEISS database  is comprised of a sample of hospitals  that are statistically  representative of
        hospital emergency rooms nationwide. From the data collected, estimates can be made of the numbers of
        injuries associated with consumer products and treated in hospital emergency departments.

    2.   CPSC's Injury/Potential Injury  Incident File (IPII) contains summaries, indexed by consumer product, of
      -  Hotline reports, product-related newspaper accounts, reports from medical examiners, and letters to CPSC.

    3.   CPSC's In-Depth Investigations (INDP) file contains summaries of reports  of investigations into events
        surrounding .product-related injuries or incidents. Based on victim/witness interviews, the reports provide
        details about incident sequence, human behavior, and product involvement.

    4.   The National  Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) is a database of fires attended by the fire service.
        NFIRS provides data at the product level and is not a probability sample. The information from the NFIRS
        database results are weighted  up to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) survey to provide
        national annual product-level estimates.

US CPSC's public website contains information on voluntary manufacturer recalls dating back over 30 years. In
reviewing this website, EPA reviewed recalls related to small gasoline-powered equipment such as lawn mowers,
generators, pumps, pressure washers, utility vehicles, snow throwers, go-karts, tractors, and engines. In these nine
categories, EPA  identified 32  recall actions that  were related to either fire or burn risk on gasoline-powered
equipment.

CPSC Databases:

Working closely with CPSC staff, EPA reviewed the databases and recall events to identify those which might have
a bearing on this safety study. Each of these is discussed below.

NEISS:   CPSC's National Electronic  Injury Surveillance System reported a total of 475 thermal burn injuries
related to gasoline-fueled lawn mowers that were treated in hospital emergency rooms over  the five year period
2000-2004.15 The product codes used to  create this dataset included walk behind mowers, riding lawn mowers, lawn
tractors  and  lawn mower product codes that do not specify the type of mower. Based on this period sampling of
NEISS reported cases, there were an estimated 19,072 lawn mower thermal burns injuries treated in emergency
rooms around the United States. Ninety six percent of these injuries were treated and released.  Most of the victims
                                                   24

-------
(51%) suffered hand injuries. Other body parts that were injured frequently were finger, lower arm, and lower leg
(about 15%, 13%, and 8% of the cases, respectively).

The descriptive narratives of the NEISS reported cases were reviewed to determine hazard patterns that resulted in
thermal  burn injuries. The following hazard patterns were identified:

        *   Contact Burn: An individual contacts a hot lawn mower component and receives a burn.
        •   Refueling-Related Fire: Ignition of fuel vapor when an individual was refueling.

In addition, there were two  NEISS hazard patterns (shown below) which either had a significant user behavior
component to the problem, which is not a technical issue, or were inadequately described in the records to allow a
laboratory or field assessment of the incremental risk. These two items are assessed primarily in the FMEA.

        •   Unspecified: The running lawn mower caught fire/exploded for reasons unspecified.
        •   Maintenance: An individual is performing lawn mower maintenance activities when a fire occurs.

Table 3.2 shows the annual NEISS estimates for both thermal burn injuries associated with gasoline fueled lawn
mowing equipment from 2000-2004 and the portion of these burns that were due to the victim contacting a hot lawn
mower component.  There was an estimated average of 3,814 thermal burn injuries per yearb with contact burns
accounting for 88% (3,375)  of these injuries. There were no significant differences among the years studied, nor
were there any significant trends detected over these five years.
b Note: The 2000-2004 NEISS estimates are larger than the 1990 - 1998 estimates in report 6, [Thermal Bum Contact-Related
Injuries Associated with Gasoline-Engine Powered Equipment, 1990-1998,  Adler, P.,  because the 2000-2004 data set included
additional product codes such as lawn mowers not specified, tractors other or not specified, powered lawn mowers not specified.


                                                    25

-------
                                               Table 3-2
                          Annual Estimates of Emergency Room Treated Thermal
                          Burns From Gasoline-Fueled Lawn Mowing Equipment1*
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total
Mean
Estimate of
Thermal Burn
Injuries
3,509
4,256
4,354
3,587
3,365
19,072
3,814
Proportion of Thermal
Burn Injuries due to
Contact
92% (3,236)
85% (3,626)
92% (3 ,985)
84% (3,026)
89% {3 ,002)
88% (16,875)
88% (3,375)
IPII and INDP: Gasoline-powered lawn mower records related to thermal burn injuries or potential injuries were
obtained from CPSC's Injury/Potential Injury Incident File and In-Depth Investigation files.17  For the five year
period of January 2000 through December 2004, there were 466 1P1I records and 87 INDP records.  There were
cases  of some duplication in the NEISS, IPII/INDP records because the emphasis was in finding scenarios that can
lead to thermal burn injuries rather than removing duplicate records. EPA and CPSC reviewed every record in these
databases, with the purpose of identifying the prevalence of problems with engine or equipment systems affected by
EPA's potential new exhaust and fuel evaporative emission standards. Several hazard patterns were identified from
the INDP  and IPII records that caused or could potentially cause fire and thermal burn injuries.  These hazard
patterns fall into two basic categories.   In the first, the hazards identified are directly traceable to a technical
performance or failure in a component or subsystem on the engine  or  are the effect of the characteristics and
performance of the equipment itself. These are shown below:

    •   Fuel Leaks: fuel leaks  from tank installed on equipment, faulty fuel hose or primer bulb, or from faulty or
        malfunctioning carburetor

    •   Debris Fire: Ignition of grass or leaves from hot components on the lawn mower

    •   Shutdown/Storage:  .A  lawn mower stored or used near combustibles/flammable materials or near an
        ignition source such as an appliance with a pilot light results in  a fire.

    •   Engine Backfire/Misfire: The lawn mower  backfires resulting in either noise or fire/flames.

    •   Contact Burn: An individual contacting a hot lawn mower component that results in a burn

    •   Refueling Related Fire: Ignition of fiiel liquid or vapor related to refueling

In addition, there were three hazard patterns (shown below) which either had a significant user behavior component
to the problem which is not a technical issue or were inadequately described in the records to allow a laboratory or
field assessment of the incremental risk.  These three items are assessed primarily in the FMEA.

    •   Maintenance: An individual performing lawn mower maintenance activities that results in a fire

    •   Tip Over: A riding lawn mower tips over when in use resulting in fuel leaks. It is believed that fuel leaks
        from the overturned lawn mower are primarily from the vented gas cap or from the carburetor. In some of
        these records, the individual becomes trapped under the riding lawn mower.

    •   Unspecified: For reasons unspecified, the running lawn mower  catches fire/explodes
                                                   26

-------
NFIRS: The National Fire Incident Reporting System is based on firefighter and first responder reports on incidents
to which they respond.  The data  compiled by the US Fire  Administration and the National Fire  Protection
Association is not as complete or precise as that from the NE1SS. Nonetheless, the data provided by CPSC estimates
that for 2002 there were 100 fires involving gasoline-fueled tawn mowing equipment and estimates that there were
10 injuries associated with these fires.18

CPSC RECALL INFORMATION

The CPSC  website publishes Recalls and Product Safety News, where manufacturers, in cooperation with CPSC,
voluntarily  recall products that pose  a safety hazard to consumers.19 Recall notices published during the period of
January 2000 to December 2004 were reviewed.  During this period there were a total of 22 lawn mowers or lawn
mower engine recalls due to safety issues related to fire and thermal burn injuries. These 22 recall notices affected
approximately 850,000 lawn mower units. Table 3-3 identifies the following hazard patterns from the recall notices:

Table 3-3:  Fire/Burn Risk Related Recall Events for Small Gasoline-powered Lawn/Garden Equipment
Problem
Category
Fuel Tank
Leaks
Fuel Hose
Leaks
Backfire
(Misfire)
Refueling Vapor
Ignition
Other
Number Recalls
11
5
2
I
3
Years Issued
2000-2004
2000-2004
2002
2001
. 2000-2004
Years Affected
1995-2004
2001-2004
1998-2001
1998-2001
1999-2003
Incidents
Reported
2229
5
25
28
27
Total Equipment
Involved
742,054
4660
34,000
39,000
28,300
EPA also identified about 10 other CPSC recalls related to small engines which either were not applicable to lawn
and garden equipment or occurred outside of the five year evaluation period. Most of these were related to fuel
tanks and fuel hoses. This type of problem was also identified in the 2000-2004 lawn mower equipment recalls.

Discussion of CPSC Data

Taken as a whole, the reports and data provided by CPSC are consistent and indicate that the following types of
incidents should be of primary  technical concern when evaluating the incremental impact on safety of the more
advanced emissions control technology:  burns due to contact with hot surfaces, fuel tank leaks, fuel hose leaks,
refueling vapor ignition, debris fires, shutdown and storage related fires, engine backfire/misfire, and carburetor fuel
leaks.

In the chapters which follow, EPA identifies causative factors which might be contributing to these hazard patterns
and their occurrence in  use, and presents data and technical analyses assessing the incremental  impact on these
hazard patterns  of potential Phase 3 exhaust and fuel evaporative emission standards for Class I and Class II engines
and equipment.
                                                   27

-------
1  "Estimated Number of Refueling Events for Residential Mowing Equipment," EPA memorandum from Phil
Carlson, March 3,2006, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0331.
? U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 90, §90.103, Tables 2 and 3.
3 ANSI B71.1-2003, "American National Standard for Consumer Turf Care Equipment - Walk-Behind Mowers and
Ride-On Machines with Mowers - Safety Specifications", American National Standards Institute, 2003.
4 ANSI B71.4-2004, "American National Standard for Commercial Turf Care Equipment - Safety Specifications"
American National Standards Institute, 2004.
5  ASAE S440.3, "Safety for  Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment", American  Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.org, March 2005.
6  ISO 5395, "Power lawn-mowers, lawn tractors,  lawn and garden tractors, professional mowers, and lawn and
garden tractors with  mowing attachments -- Definitions, safety  requirements and test procedures",  International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1990.
7 ASTM C1055-03,  "Standard  Guide for Heated System Surface Conditions That Produce Contact Bum Injuries",
ASTM International, 2003.
8 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 16, Part 1205.
9 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0321.
10 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0322.
11 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0323.
12 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0332.
11 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0329.
14 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0320.
15 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0327.
16 U.S. Consumer Product  Safety Commission, National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database, 2000-
2004.
17 The Injury/Potential Injury Incident File (IPII) can be found at Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0325.  The In-
Depth Investigation (INDP) files can be found at Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0326.
18 "NFIRS Data on Gasoline-Fueled Lawn Mowing Equipment,  2002," CPSC memo from Risana Chowdhury to
Susan Bathalon, December 7,2005, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0324.
19    U.S.    Consumer    Product   Safety   Commission,   "Recalls   and    Product    Safety   News",
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prerel.html
                                                28

-------
4.  Scenarios for Evaluation of NHH Engines and  Equipment

A.      SUMMARY OF OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED
                                                                                     \
In this chapter, EPA identifies the key scenarios used in evaluating the incremental impact on safety associated with
advanced emission control technology for NHH engines and equipment.  The scenarios cover a comprehensive
variety of in-use conditions or circumstances which potentially could lead to an increase in burns or fires. These
may occur presently or not at all, but are included because of the potential impact on safety if they were to occur,
EPA is not identifying these as conditions that will in fact occur, but more as potential or hypothetical conditions
should be evaluated.  The focus of the analysis is therefore on the incremental impact on the likelihood or that the
severity of these  scenarios  and the potential causes occurring from using  more advanced  emissions control
technology.

In addition to using the CPSC reports and databases, EPA considered additional inputs in identifying the scenarios
for evaluation. These included the following:

    •   OPEI briefing to EPA entitled: "Discussion of Off-Nominal Operating Conditions for Catalyzed Small
        Off-Road SI Engines and Lawn/Garden Equipment," Oct 26,2005.1

OPEI identified nominal and off nominal conditions and laid out concerns which occur in the lab versus in the field.
According to OPEI,  off nominal  conditions  are defined as unintentional and unavoidable  conditions during
equipment operation  which are non-trivial infrequency and may be high consequence events leading to significant
increase in fire and heat-related safety hazards. The four general categories of off nominal conditions identified by
OPEI include:

                 i.  An increase in the amount of air present in the muffler/catalyst region

                ii.  Air/Fuel ratio changes affecting catalyst conversion efficiency

               in.  Increase of unburned fuel into muffler/catalyst or on hot surfaces of the equipment

                iv.  Changes in the cooling air flow management system

    •   National  Association  of State  Fire Marshals memorandum from Margaret Simonson to James Burns,
        "Recommendations  for Independent Research Project on Fire Safety of Measures being Considered to
        Reduce Emissions of Small Engines in Outdoor Power Equipment," September 22,2004.2

    •   Memorandum, from Charles Burnham Applied Safety and  Ergonomics to Margaret Simonson, National
        Association  of State Fire Marshals entitled, "Request for Data: Air Quality Measures for Small  Engines
        Used with Outdoor Power Equipment," June 18, 2004.3

    •   Letter from  William Guerry, Collier, Shannon, Scott, to Jackie Lourenco entitled Re:  "CARB's  Catalyst
        Durability Study." September 10,2002."

    •   "Lawn-Mower Related Burns," Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, Volume 21, No.8, pp. 403-405.5

    •   "Literature Survey  on Garden Machinery (lawnmowers)" prepared  by Dutch  Consumer and Safety
        foundation for the Inspectorate for Health Protection and Veterinary Public Health, November 3,2002.6

    •   Discussion with the  National Institute for Standards and Testing (N1ST), December 6,2005.7

    •   "Durability of Low Emissions Small Off-Road Engines," Southwest Research institute, April, 2004.8
                                                 29

-------
    •   Information  from  meetings, workshops,  and discussions with engine  and equipment  manufacturers
        including but not limited to:

            o   OPE! Presentation to US EPA, May 23,2005.'

            o   Public  Consultation Meeting, The International Consortium  for Fire  Safety, Health, and
                Environment and US EPA, Briggs and Stratton Corporation, October 5,2005.10

In addition to these references, EPA has gained valuable empirical experience in the field testing conducted over the
past two years.  This testing has increased our understanding of potential failure modes and added to the scope and
depth of our planned assessment.
B.      SAFETY SCENARIOS FOR EVALUATION

There are a number of ways in which the scenarios of concern could be identified for evaluation and discussion.
EPA elected an approach which closely mirrors the problems identified in the CPSC data, while including the other
concerns identified in the other sources described in A. above. This provides a comprehensive and methodical
approach to analysis and discussion which is provided in the chapters which follow.


Scenario 1: Contact burns

Scenario Description: Thermal burns due to inadvertent contact with hot surface on engine or equipment.

Potential Causes:

        a.   muffler surface temperature increases due to debris inhibiting flow of cooling air

        b.   higher temperatures on mower deck or around muffler due to higher radiant heat load from   muffler
            or engine

        c.   muffler temperature increase due to air-to-fuel ratio enleanment caused by calibration drift over time,
                fuel system problems or air filter element mal-maintenance

        d,   exhaust gas leaks increase surface temperatures

        e.   misfueling: use of highly oxygenated fuel such as E85 (mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline)

Scenario 2: Debris fire:

Scenario Description: Grass and  leaf debris fires on engine/equipment.

Potential Causes:

        a.   muffler temperature increases due to debris inhibiting flow of cooling air, debris trapped in tight areas
            blocks air flow, dries  out and heats up

        b.   higher temperatures on mower deck or around muffler due to higher radiant heat load from muffler or
            engine or exhaust system leaks

        c,   muffler temperature increase due to A/F ratio enleanment caused by calibration  drift over time, air
            filter element mal-maintenance, or exhaust system  leaks
                                                   30

-------
        d.   exhaust gas leaks increase surface temperatures




        e.   misfueling: use of highly oxygenated fiiel such as ESS




Scenario 3:  Fires due to fuel leak




Scenario Description: Fires due to fuel leaks on hot surfaces.




Potential Causes:




        a.   faulty fuel tank




        b.   faulty fuel line or connection




        c.   tip-over during maintenance




        d.   tip over in operation




        e.   faulty carburetor




        f.   heat affects fuel tank or fuel line integrity






Scenario 4: Fires related to refueling




Scenario Description: Fires related to spilled fuel or refueling vapor.




 Potential Causes:




        a.   fuel spilled on hot surfaces




        b.   spilled fuel evaporates or refueling vapors lead to fire indoors






Scenario 5: Fire related to storage and shutdown




Scenario Description: Equipment or structure fire when equipment left unattended after use.




Potential Causes:




         a.   ignition of nearby easily  combustible materials




         b.   ignition of fuel vapor by an appliance pilot light (or similar open source of ignition)




         c.   ignition of dry debris on deck




        d.   ignition of dry debris in field




        e.   ignition of tarp or other cover over equipment






Scenario 6:  Ignition misfire
                                                      31

-------
Scenario Description: Engine  malfunction which results in an ignitable mixture of unburnt fuel and air in the
muffler.

Potential Causes:

        a.   misfire caused by partial failure in ignition system (single cylinder engines)

        b.   misfire caused by failure in ignition system, particularly complete failure of ignition for one cylinder
            (2 cylinder V-twin engines)

        c.   after-fire^ackfl^e caused by  engine run-on after  ignition shut-down due to failure of the  engine
            flywheel brake or carburetor fuel-cut solenoid

Scenario 7: Fire due to rich operation

Scenario Description: Fire due  to operation with richer than designed A/F ratio in engine or catalyst.

Potential Causes:

        a.   fuel system degradation such as faulty carburetor, oil consumption or carburetor deposits

        b.   faulty or misapplied choke

        c.   air filter element mal-maintenance

        d.   debris blocks catalyst venturi

In addition, through the FMEAs, we assess the hazard patterns identified in Chapter 3 related to equipment fire and
explosion for an unspecified reason.

Chapter 3 laid out the basic NHH technology, discussed the current safety standards affecting design, and analyzed
in-use safety experience. This chapter identifies the key scenarios  to evaluate and the causal factors to consider in
this assessment.  We turn now to a description of the test methods used in the EPA laboratory and field work for
NHH engines.
1 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0310.
2 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0311.
3 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0312.
4 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0313.
5 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0314.
6 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0315.
7 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0316.
8 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0317.
9 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0318.
10 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0319.
                                                  32

-------
5.      NHH Test Program
This chapter describes EPA's laboratory and field testing of Class I and Class II engines and equipment.
                                                                                           We
describe the engines selected for testing, the engine's emissions control systems, and the test methodology used to
assess safety of prototype Phase 3 engines compared to current Phase 2 product.
A.
ENGINE SELECTION
We selected a total of nineteen nonhandheld SI engines for laboratory and field testing in this study. Twelve of the
engines were Class I engines and were evenly split between side-valve and OHV engine designs from four different
engine families.  Eight of the engines were Class II engines, all OHV engine designs from three different engine
families.  General specifications for the Class I and Class II engines that were tested are provided in Tables 5-1 and
5-2. The engines were obtained by purchasing residential lawn mowers and lawn tractors from retail stores in SE
Michigan.

The two Class I side-valve engine families selected were certified to U.S. Federal Phase 2 Emission Standards,
without the use of emissions credit, as well as California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 2 Emission Standards.
Together these two  engine families represented approximately 50% of all gasoline-Si Class I side-valve engine
sales, and they also represented 75% of gasoline-Si Class I side-valve engines certified to Phase 2 for the 2004
model year.

The two Class I OHV engine families selected for testing were also certified to the Phase 2 emission standards.
Together these two engine families represented approximately 46% of all gasoline-Si Class I OHV engine sales, and
approximately 50% of Class I, OHV engines certified to Phase 2 for the 2004 model year.

Table 5-1:  Summary of Class I engine and equipment specifications.  All of the engines tested were from
residential walk-behind lawn mower applications.
Engine ID numbers
(grouped by engine
family)
Emissions Standard (as
determined from
"emissions tag")
Advertised Power (h.p.)
Maximum Brake Power
(b.h.p)
Governed Speed @ 75%-
10% of maximum brake
torque (rpm)
Engine Displacement
(liters)
Valve Arrangement
Equipment Used for
Field Testing
243, 244, 245
Federal Phase 2,
CARB Tier 2
5.5
3.2-3.7
2700-2900
0.16
OHV
Self-propelled walk-
behind lawn mower,
configured for
mulching
241, 255
Federal Phase 2, CARB
Tier 2
6.75
4.3 - 4.5
2800-3100
0.19
OHV
Not field tested -
obtained from self-
propelled walk-behind
lawn mowers
258
Federal Phase 2, CARB
Tier 2
6.0
3.0
3160-3260
0.19
Side-valve
Not field tested -
obtained from a self-
propelled walk-behind
lawn mower,
236, 246, 248, 249,
259
Federal Phase 2,
CARB Tier 2
6.0
2.9-3.0
2700-2900
0.20
Side-valve
Self-propelled walk-
behind lawn mower,
configured for
mulching
                                                  33

-------
Two of the three Class II engine families selected  for testing were both OHV designs, and together represent
approximately 24% of the gasoline-Si Class  II Phase 2 engine sales for the 2004 model year.  The third engine
family (engines 254 and 256) is a new design that has superseded one of the other Class II engine families tested
(engines 232 and 233) in high-volume consumer lawn and garden applications.

Table 5-2:  Summary of Class II engine specifications.  All of the engines tested were from residential lawn tractor
applications.
Engine ID numbers (grouped
by engine family)
Emissions Standard
(transcribed from "emissions
tag")
Advertised Power (h.p.)
Maximum Brake Power
(b.h.p) @ 3060 rpm
Governed Speed (rpm) @
75%-10% of maximum
brake torque
Engine Displacement (liters)
Valve Arrangement
Equipment Used for Field
Testing
231,251,252,253
Federal Phase 2,
CARB Tier 2
18.0
12.8
2900-3100
0.5
OHV
Residential lawn
tractor w/manual
transmission
232, 233
Federal Phase 2,
CARB Tier 2
17.5
12.4
2900-3150
0.49
OHV
Residential lawn
tractor w/manual
transmission
254, 256
Federal Phase 2,
CARB Tier 2
20
11.8
3150-3350
0.6
OHV
Residential lawn
tractor w/hydrostatic
drive
B.
ENGINE MODIFICATIONS
This section describes the advanced emission control systems developed for the engines in section A. Note that
brief descriptions of tested configurations are also included within the tabulated emissions results in Appendix B.

Class I - 10 g/kW-hr systems

EPA conducted a literature search of existing catalyst-muffler designs for Class I  engines.  Three basic designs
covered under four separate patents showed  promise for application to Class 1 Phase 2 engines. 1,2,3,4 These
designs share a number of common features, including:

    •   Compact design, being virtually the same size as some standard mufflers available for this engine

    •   Use of a passive exhaust venturi or exhaust ejector for introduction of secondary air

    •   Exhaust pulse dampening located upstream of the venturi

    •   Relatively small substrate volume

One of the catalyst-muffler designs' was already in mass production by an OEM for use on European walk-behind
lawn mowers (Figure 5-1).  EPA purchased  several of these units and  conducted  a preliminary  engineering and
chemical analysis.  This  particular design used a simple, stamped venturi for passive secondary air entrainment and
a small (approximately 20 cc or 1.2 in3) cordierite monolith with 400 cell/square-inch (cpsi) construction common
                                                   34

-------
in automotive applications. The catalyst substrate was retained with a common automotive-type matting material.
PGM loading was approximately 30 g/ft3 with a Pt:Pd:Rh ratio of approximately 5:0:1.

Following initial analysis of the OEM European catalyst-muffler, it was determined that an increase in catalyst
volume might  be needed to provide sub-10 g/kW-hr  HC+NOx emissions at high  hours  after  taking  into
consideration an  expected degree of catalyst oil poisoning and degradation of engine-out emissions.   Initial
prototype samples were fabricated by lengthening the muffler by 20 mm and doubling the substrate volume within
the production  European catalyst-muffler (Figure 5-2).  Although increasing substrate volume in this manner
increases exhaust backpressure, for the engine family that this catalyst muffler was tested with there was virtually
identical peak power output at  wide-open-throttle (WOT) at the  A-Cycle test  speed (3060 rpm) for both the
modified catalyst-muffler and the OEM  muffler.   Similar results  were achieved with other catalyst muffler
configurations that tested with other engines. Thus the backpressure increase that resulted from the use of catalysts
within the exhaust systems was not sufficient to impact power output.   This may have been  in part due  to the
relatively small catalyst volumes tested, the geometry of the substrates  (generally  much lower cell density than
automotive substrates, and also generally "shorter-fatter" geometries), and the exhaust restriction of the substrates
relative to that of other parts of the exhaust system.
     2-stage baffle immediately
     downstream of exhaust port
  20 cc, 400 cpsi cordserite catalyst
  substrate with automotive matting
Venturi air inlets
Figure 5-1: Details of an OEM catalyst-muffler from a European walk-behind lawn mower application.
                                                    35

-------
 Catalyst-muffler   reconfigured
 with a second 20 cc substrate
 (40 cc total), repositioned  inlet
 and modified  internal  baffles.
 this  is  the unit  tested  with
 engine 241.
 Catalyst-muffler   reconfigured
 with  a second 20 cc substrate
 (40 cc total).  This is similar to
 the  configuration  tested  with
 engine 258.
 OEM European Catalyst-muffler
Figure 5-2: Catalyst-muffler from Figure 5-1 (bottom) modified with additional catalyst volume (center) and with
modifications to the inlet and internal baffles to allow use with engjne 241 (top).
                                            36

-------
The lengthened European catalyst-muffler was further modified by changing the exhaust inlet to allow its use on an
additional engine type (see  Figure 5-2).  Additional catalysts with different formulation and construction  were
obtained from major North American catalyst suppliers (Figure 5-3). Catalyst substrates tested included:

    1,   34 cc, 100 cpsi metal monoliths;

    2.   44 cc, 200 cpsi metal monoliths;

    3.   metal-mesh substrates;

    4.   22 cc 200 cpsi metal monolith with a 20 mm dia. X 73 mm long tubular pre-catalystc; and

    5.   the aforementioned  400 cpsi cordierite monoliths, doubled to provide approximately 40 cc catalyst volume
        (Figure 5-2).

Ceramic monoliths have been used successfully in OEM applications in Europe, and have proven durable provide
appropriate matting and support for the substrate is provided within the catalyst muffler design.  Metal monoliths
are more resistant to shock than ceramic monoliths, and may be easier to package into catalyst mufflers for  some
applications, but are generally more expensive. Metal mesh substrates approach the cost of ceramic monoliths, and
have acceptable durability due to recent improvements in substrate packaging and washcoat adhesion. AH  three
substrate types were tested because they represent the range of types that EPA expects to be used to comply with the
California Tier 3 and the expected Federal Phase 3 standards for different applications.

Most of the prototype catalyst-mufflers contained catalyst substrates  with different construction and PGM loading in
the OEM European catalyst-muffler housing. Some designs also incorporated additional heat-shielding or shrouding
(see  Figure 5-4).  One prototype catalyst-muffler, tested with engine 243, was completely fabricated from scratch
using a tubular venturi and  a general  layout similar to previous  designs (Figure 5-5).3,4  An additional  catalyst-
muffler for engine 249 was  tested without the use of secondary air and was fit entirely within the standard OEM
muffler.

The  tubular pre-catalysts were installed upstream of the secondary-air-venturi, with a 22 cc 200 cpsi monolith
installed downstream of the venturi (Engines 243 and 255). The catalyst-muffler tested with engine 255 is shown in
Figure 5-6.

The PGM loadings on the monolithic substrates ranged  from 30 g/ft3 to 50 g/ft3. Generally, higher loadings were
used with smaller substrate volumes  to provide a similar overall level  of PGM surface area  within a smaller
packaging volume. The loading ratio of 5:0:1  (Pt:Pd:Rh) as used with the production catalyst-muffler was the most
common, but loading ratios ranging from 4:0:1 to 0.33:3.66:1 and one Rh-only only were also tested. The specific
loading of any particular catalyst tested and its relationship to particular data results was considered proprietary, but
general trends in emissions versus PGM loading and loading ratio will be discussed within the results section.

When  selecting catalyst secondary air configurations to test with each engine,  the primary design target was to
achieve less than  10 g/kW-hr HC+NOx emissions at the 125 hour useful life level because this is the most common
for residential walk-behind  lawn mowers.  A maximum of 7.0 g/kW-hr HC+NOx target was  set for low-hour
emissions performance for the Class I  residential lawn mower engines to allow for engine and catalyst degradation
over the 125-hour useful life requirements for these engines.  Secondary design targets included minimization of
CO oxidation at  moderate to high load conditions (e.g., A-cycle modes 1  and  2) and  exhaust  system surface
temperatures comparable to those of current Phase 2 OEM systems.

The OEM versions of engines 243, 244 and 245 were equipped with mufflers enclosed in shrouds that directed air
flow across the surface of the mufflers for additional cooling of the exhaust system.  The catalyst-muffler systems
developed for engines 243, 244, and 245 were equipped with shrouds providing a similar function, but with the air-
outlet of the shroud relocated in order to provide improved air flow over the outer surface of the catalyst-muffler.
c A tube with a single, perforated channel in which all of the internal surfaces are washcoated.
                                                    37

-------
 These engines also were equipped with an exhaust ejector over the exhaust outlet of the catalyst-mufflers to both
 cool the exiting exhaust gases and to provide for additional heat rejection from the surface of the shroud. A similar
 shroud and ejector system was tested with engine 249.
 Figure 5-3: Some of the catalyst substrate types evaluated by EPA with Class I and Class II engines included (from
 left to right)  100 cpsi metal monoliths (in 50 mm and 33 mm diameters); 200 cpsi metal monolith; catalyzed tube
 pre-catalysts (in 20 mm and 25 mm diameters); 400 cpsi coridierite (square-oval and round) and metal-mesh  The
 50 mm diameter catalyst on the far left was used with Class II engine test configurations. The remaining catalysts
 were tested with Class I engines.                                                                       }
Figure 5-4: Engine 236 with catalyst-muffler installed on dynamometer test stand at the U.S. EPA National Vehicle
and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL).  The muffler was derived from a production European catalyst-muffler
It  was modified to allow installation onto a different engine type, and a 44 cc metal monolith catalyst was
substituted for the original ceramic monolith.  A small heat shield was added to  prevent heating of the intake
manifold. • The catalyst-muffler configurations for engines 246 and 249 were similar, but with different catalyst
substrates and PGM loadings.
                                                  38

-------
   Modified muffler
        shroud
OEM muffler
   shroud
OEM exhaust
    outlet
Figure 5-5:  Engine 243 (left) equipped with a catalyst-muffler, passive venturi-secondary-air, muffler air shroud
and exhaust ejector compared to a similar engine (right) with the OEM muffler and muffler air shroud.
•" *,20mm diiitube pre-catalvst
                                                          ti. .).'.-„-..5
Figure 5-6:  Catalyst-muffler (left) and OEM muffler (right) tested with engine 255.
                                               39

-------
Class II - 3.5 e/kW-hr HC+NOx system

Engines 231 and 232 were fitted with an ECU and components originally developed for the Asian motor-scooters
and small-displacement motorcycles. The fueling logic was speed-throttle-based with barometric pressure (BP) and
MAP correction capability. The OEM ignition system and mechanical speed governing were maintained.

The fuel system consisted of an electronic fuel pump, external regulator, and small fuel injector.   The fuel pump
has a flow capacity of 2.5 grams per second at 250 kPa, which was the regulator's pressure setting. The fuel pumps
used were also designed with power consumption minimized to 1 amp.  Engine 231 used an in-line fuel  pump and
engine 232 used an in-tank fuel pump. The ECU controlled the fuel pump with a pulse-width-modulated low side
drive. The injectors used were a two-hole design with 12 Degree spray cone, and has a static flow of 1.4 grams per
second at the 250 kPa regulated fuel pressure.

The  sensors for the ECU were minimized to a throttle position sensor (TPS), air charge temperature sensor, oil
temperature sensor, ECU board-mounted  MAP sensor,  and crankshaft variable reluctance sensor for a two-tooth
crankshaft target.  The throttle position sensor (TPS) required a zero-return spring force to avoid interference with
operation of the engine's mechanical governor. Initially a springless linear potentiometer mounted on the governor
linkage primary control arm was used for TPS.  As  development progressed,  this unit was replaced with a TPS
sensor from an automotive electronic throttle control module.

Catalyst  formulations  and the  air-to-fuel ratio calibration  of the open-loop electronic  fuel injection (EF1) system
were selected in a manner that prioritized NOx  reduction and HC oxidation over CO oxidation.  The catalyst-
mufflers were selected  for  further testing by first screening  six different catalysts with varying washcoating
formulations, substrate volume and substrate construction.  Specific PGM loadings,  loading ratios, and catalyst
construction for the catalysts used in this  study were proprietary, but in general loadings were between  50 and 70
g/ft3,  and loading ratios varied  from 0:5:1  to 5:0:1.  Both 200 cpsi and 400 cpsi metal-foil monolithic catalyst
substrates were tested. Catalyst  volume varied from approximately 50% to 55% of the engine displacement.  A
typical catalyst-muffler is shown in  Figure 5-7.

Details of the installation of modified components as installed on a lawn tractor chassis are shown in Figure 5-8.
The engine air shrouding was extended and the routing  of cooling air through the chassis  of the lawn tractors was
changed to route  the cooling air from the engine fan, downstream  of the engine, over  the catalyst-muffler and
exiting either to the side or the front  of the lawn tractor. The resulting forced air cooling reduced exhaust system
temperatures and also prevented debris build-up in the areas adjacent to the exhaust system  components.
                                                   40

-------
Figure 5-7:  The photos  on the left show the layout of the 3-chamber OEM Nelson lawn tractor muffler. The
mufflers used with the other Class II lawn tractor engines were very similar except for the inlet-pipe configuration.
OEM mufflers were sectioned and a catalyst monolith was installed between the upper and lower chambers. The
outlet was relocated to facilitate use with an exhaust ejector, and the inlet was flanged to allow use of the catalyst-
muffler in different chassis configurations and to provide the additional clearance necessary for testing the catalyst-
muffler while the engine  was installed  on the dynamometer.   The catalyst  mufflers for the  8.0 g/kW-hr
configurations fit entirely within the OEM muffler (upper right and center right). The catalyst-mufflers fabricated
for the 3.5 g/kW-hr configurations (example, lower right) had a cylindrical section that extended above the main
body of the muffler to allow space for additional catalyst volume, and the third chamber was relocated to the top
half of the muffler. Use of an oval monolith would have allowed packaging within the OEM muffler space, but an
appropriate-size oval monolith was not available at the time of testing.
                                                   41

-------
                                                                         ECU with
                                                                       integral  MAP
                                                                           sensor
                                                                      Throttle-body
                                                                          injection

Exhaust
ejector
outlet
Approximate
location of catalyst
and muffler

Extension of engine
air- shroud to direct
air flow towards
muffler location


Figure 5-8: Engine 232 installed in a lawn tractor chassis, showing details of the engine and chassis modifications.
The exhaust ejector extends for nearly the entire width of the cavity in which the muffler is housed.
                                            42

-------
Class II - 8.0 g/kW-hr HC+NOx systems

The tested configurations of engines 253 and 254 used OEM carburetors and air-to-fuel ratio calibration.  No
changes were made to the base Phase 2 configuration of the engine other than those necessary to install the catalyst-
mufflers.  Four different catalysts were initially tested with varying PGM loading, loading ratio, substrate volume
and substrate construction, and two were selected for operation in the field.  Specific PGM loadings, loading ratios,.
and catalyst construction for the catalysts used in  this  study were proprietary, but in general loadings were between
30 and 40 g/ft3,  loading ratios  were  approximately 5:0:1, and both 200 cpsi metal-foil and 400 cpsi ceramic
monolithic catalyst substrates were tested.  Availability of appropriately sized and coated substrates had more
impact on choice of substrate material since performance was comparable between  the two substrate types at this
level of emissions control.   The  catalyst volumes varied from  approximately  25% to 40%  of the  engine
displacement.  Photographs of the catalyst-muffler configurations for engines 253 and 254 are shown in Figures 5-9
and 5-10.
 Figure 5-9:  Engine 253 undergoing dynamometer testing with catalyst-muffler installed. The addition of a single
 250cc 400 cpsi ceramic monolith into the OEM muffler and minor physical modifications to the exhaust-muffler
 were the only changes made to this Class II, Phase 2 engine.  The exhaust-lambda sensor mounted into the exhaust
 pipe was used for laboratory measurement purposes only.
                                                     43

-------
                                                Exhaust
                                              ejector inlet
   Exhaust
ejector outlet
Figure 5-10:  Engine 254 undergoing dynamometer testing with catalyst-muffler installed (left) and installed in a
lawn tractor chassis (right). The addition of two 79cc, 100 cpsi metal-monolith catalysts into the OEM muffler and
minor modifications of the exhaust-muffler were the only changes made to this Class II, Phase 2 engine.
                                             44

-------
C.      INFRARED THERMAL IMAGING

The  primary experimental method used  for comparison of exhaust system, engine, and  equipment surface
temperatures during laboratory and  field testing was via infrared (1R) thermal imaging.5,6,7 IR thermal imaging is
based on principles originally developed for target finding and surveillance by the U.S. Department of Defense.  IR
still images  in the laboratory were obtained using an "IR Snapshot" IR  imager.  Full 'motion IR imaging  in the
laboratory and in the field was obtained using an "IR Flexcam T" infrared imager.  Both IR imagers correct the IR
radiance from any single point on the target surface in a manner that a captures precise, accurate representation of
the true temperature at that location. The following assumptions are necessary to allow this sort of analysis:

    1.  The IR absorption of the air path between the target and the instrument is negligible, and

    2.  No IR energy is transmitted through the target from sources behind the target.

In order to correct for reflection of the ambient background, it was necessary for the operator of the imager to input
the background temperature.  This was monitored in the laboratory and in the field using J-type thermocouples. It
should be noted that during laboratory testing EPA-NVFEL test cells are held at a nearly constant  background
temperature of 25 °C ± 1 °C.

The operator of the imager also provided inputs  for the targets estimated  emissivity. All the primary  temperature
targets (Mufflers/Catalysts) were painted with a high temperature flat-black paint with a dull matte finish. This was
used to even out the emissivity over the surface of the object as well as to increase the value of the emissivity of the
object.  An emissivity of 0.9 was  used for this project.   To check the validity of the emissivity assumptions, a
comparison  of the surface temperature measured with the IR imager was made to a known surface  temperature
measured with a J-type thermocouple. The temperatures were within 1% of agreement.

The IR imagers have the following general specifications:

    •   They use microbolometer detectors that require no cryogenic cooling.

    •   The detector elements are square and are located in a rectangular grid.

    •   The optical path of the camera includes  an appropriate band-pass filter for the temperature range of
        interest.

    •   The IR Snapshot Camera has a NIST traceable calibration from 10 °C to 1200 °C with accuracy of 2 °C or
        2% of reading.

    •   The IR FlexCam has a NIST traceable calibration from 0 °C to  600 °C with  accuracy of 2 °C or  2% of
        reading.

    •   The lenses for both cameras are made from germanium and are anti-reflective coated for high transmission
        in the temperature range of choice.

Both imagers were calibrated using NIST traceable temperature standards prior to the beginning of the IR thermal
imaging tests and at the end of the test program.  No  change to the calibration  curve of either instrument was
necessary between the first and second set of calibrations. Calibration results are provided in Appendix  A.
                                                   45

-------
D.
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
Operation over the Federal A-Cvcle

U.S. Federal Phase 2 A-cycle test (table 5-3) was used to gather emissions data and to provide a broad range of
engine operational  conditions under which  exhaust system surface temperatures could be measured using  the
infrared thermal imaging equipment.8   The engine dynamometer test cell was kept a temperature of 25 °C ± 1  °C,
with an absolute humidity of 75 grains-H2O/lbm-dry-air.  Tests were conducted using a 20 kW (maximum) Edy-
current dynamometer.

IR still images were used during laboratory testing to allow more precise determination of peak temperatures and to
allow further flexibility within the temperature analyses than was possible with the full-motion-video IR imaging.

Some of the engines tested were equipped with  a user-selectable governor speed setting.  For these engines  the
speed setting was kept in the 100% position for A-cycle modes 2, 3, 4, and 5. The user-selectable governor speed
setting was set to 0% (low-speed idle) for mode 6.

Some of the  engines had no provision for  user adjustment of  the governor speed.   For these engines,  engine
operation occurred with the engine governor controlling engine speed for modes  2, 3, 4, 5  and  6 with  no
modifications or adjustments to engine governor operation. Mode 6 was run as a high-speed-idle condition.

In all cases, mode 1 of the A-cycle was obtained  via bypassing the governor and operating the engine with a fixed
wide-open-throttle (WOT) and the dynamometer control set to the A-speed (3060 rpm). Torque control provided a
coefficient of variance of 1 % or less in measured torque at WOT.

At each of the 6 steady-state modes of the A-cycle test, IR images were acquired following stabilization of cylinder
head temperature to a value of approximately:

                                          AT/At < 1 °C/minute

where AT is the change in temperature measured with a K-type thermocouple embedded within a sparkplug gasked
for cylinder head temperature measurement, and At is the measured time interval.  Depending on the engine tested,
stabilization required between five and ten minutes in A-cycle Mode 1  and approximately five to six minutes for
Modes 2 through 6.

              Table 5-3: EPA A-Cycle Intermediate Speed Steady-State Engine Dynamometer Test
EPA A-cycle Mode
Engine Speed (rpm)
Torque
Cycle Weighting Factor
1
3060
100%
(@ WOT)
9%
2
100%
governed
75%
20%
3
100%
governed
50%
29%
4
100%
governed
25%
30%
5
100%
governed
10%
7%
6
0%
governed
(low idle)
0
5%
Notes:
The engine speed governor was disabled for Mode 1, and the engine was operated at WOT with the
dynamometer in speed-control mode set to 3060 rpm. Modes 2-5 were operated with the engine speed
governor set to its 100% position and with the dynamometer in torque-control mode, with percent torque
based on the average Mode 1 value. Mode 6 was a no-load, low idle test point for both Class II engines, and
for engines 243, 244, and 245. Mode 6 was a no-load, high-idle test point for the remaining engines since
these were not equipped with a user-selectable speed setting for the engine governor.
                                                  46

-------
The limiting factor in the uncertainty of the IR surface temperature measurements was the accuracy (± 2% of point)
of the thermal imagers  rather than  test to test  variability,  thus  single tests were conducted  for each tested
configurations. Catalyst-muffler and OEM muffler configurations for each engine were conducted within one test
day.

Hot Soak Testing

Part way through the test program, EPA began conducting hot  soak tests to compare the rate of cooling of catalyst-
muffler equipped engines to that of engines equipped with OEM mufflers.  Hot soaks are timed measurements
which are  made  following the  engine  shut-down after  sustained operation.   Laboratory hot soak tests were
conducted following sustained, temperature stabilized operation at 100% load at WOT conditions (A-cycle Mode 1)
and following sustained, temperature stabilized operation at 50% load (A-cycle Mode 3). Hot soak tests were also
conducted in the field following sustained grass cutting operations (see the section  on "Field Operation" in this
chapter). The 100% load point represented a worst case test  with  the highest obtainable exhaust system surface
temperatures.  The tested engines were equipped with engine speed  governors  that could only sustain WOT
momentarily  during normal operation.  The 50% load point  was more representative of temperatures achieved
during moderate to heavy grass cutting conditions, and resulted in comparable surface temperatures to temperatures
measured during field testing.' For either the  100% or 50% load operational point, the engine was operated until
stable cylinder head and oil temperature conditions were achieved. Stabilization required approximately six to eight
minutes of operation for the WOT condition and approximately five to six minutes for the 50% load  condition,
depending on the engine. The ignition to the engine was then  turned off and a timer was started. Infrared thermal
"still" images were taken initially at  30 and  60 seconds following engine  shut-down and at 1-minute intervals
thereafter.  Manufacturer's recommendations within equipment owner's manuals for equipment using engine-
mounted fuel tanks (e.g., walk-behind lawn mowers) typically recommended waiting 2-minutes after engine shut-
down before opening the cap of the fuel tank.  Thus peak surface temperatures 2-minutes after engine shut-down
were compared to the auto-ignition temperature of regular-grade gasoline (approximately 250 °C), particularly for
the hot-soak tests from the 50% load point and for tests of Class 1 engines that used fuel tanks mounted to the
engine. The  manufacturer's recommendations for lawn tractor refueling did not stipulate a specific waiting time
prior  to refueling.  The 2-minute period  appeared to adequately  represent common usage of residential lawn
equipment, so this point during the hot soak period was also used for comparison of the Class II engine and lawn
tractor configurations.

After-fire Testing

Two engine manufacturers identified after-fire due to engine run-on  following a shut-down under high inertia! load
to be a potential safety issue.  After-fire can occur when an engine is turning  a high  inertia! load (e.g., a generator).
If the ignition is turned off, and there is no means to physically stop engine rotation, then the inertial load will
temporarily keep the engine spinning.  The mechanical governor will pull the carburetor throttle wide open, which
will both reduce engine braking and can allow a full air-fuel charge to enter the engine: Because the ignition is shut
off, the full air-fuel charge exits the exhaust valve and enters the muffler.  The air-fuel charge can ignite on hot
surfaces and  an "after-fire" flame can propagate through the muffler  and  exit the  muffler  or tailpipe.   Proper
engineering design typically prevents run-on after-fire from occurring. Most Class I  and Class II engines used in
high-inertia applications are equipped with either

    1.  a flywheel brake to rapidly stop the engine from spinning (within 3 seconds or less),  or

    2.  a fuel cut solenoid that interrupts fuel flow from the float bowl to the carburetor venturi, thus preventing
        fuel from flowing into the intake port and out the exhaust port after the ignition is turned off.

Run-on after-fire was encountered with carbureted, catalyst-equipped automobile  and light-truck engines in the
1970s and 1980s, particularly with manual transmission vehicles coasting down long grades.  One way that the issue
was addressed for these  applications  was  to build simple flame arresting properties into the mufflers.9  Flame
arresting designs route the exhaust gases through channels,  passages and/or  perforated metal  baffles that are
                                                   47

-------
designed to absorb heat from the gases and thus extinguish a flame front. Flame arresting properties can be directly            "
incorporated into the sound attenuating baffles within the muffler.

Engine 241 was used for after-fire testing.  The after fire testing replicated conditions of engine run-on due to an
inertial load on an engine after the ignition is shut off. Testing occurred at near the end of the regulatory useful life
for the engine (125 hours) following dynamometer aging of the engine and catalyst-muffler. This particular engine
was tested with a standard OEM "shallow-box" style muffler with a central baffle-plate perpendicular to the muffler
inlet that divided the muffler approximately in half, similar to the OEM muffler shown on the right half of Figure 5-
6. This engine and OEM muffler was chosen because it had relatively high exhaust port temperatures and because it
demonstrated a consistent tendency for after-fire immediately following engine shut-down during WOT hot-soak
tests that were conducted. The engine was also tested with a catalyst-muffler with venturi secondary air and 40 cc
cordierite monolith catalyst similar to the one pictured at the top of Figure 5-2.  Flame arresting properties were
incorporated into the two-stage baffle located upstream of the secondary air venturi.

The engine was operated at the 100% load, WOT condition on an Eddy-current dynamometer until stable cylinder
head  and  oil temperature conditions were achieved.   The  WOT condition  was chosen to attain the highest
achievable exhaust gas temperatures and exhaust system  surface temperatures. The engine's flywheel brake was
fixed  into a disengaged position. The engine ignition was shut-off and the dynamometer load was simultaneously
dropped to zero. The engine continued to spin due to the inertia of the dynamometer for approximately 7 seconds
before stopping completely.  This allowed air and fuel to be drawn through the engine and into the exhaust system
without combustion in the engines combustion chamber.  The condition simulated shut-down with a high inertia!
load and with failure of a fuel-cut solenoid (typically used with generator sets and lawn tractors to prevent after-fire)
or failure of a flywheel brake (used with all walk-behind lawn mowers for blade safety and to prevent after-fire).
Note  that  federal regulations  require cutting  blades  of walk-behind mowers  to  stop within 3-seconds  of
disengagement of the blade  control, and 1- to 2-seconds is rypical.10  There is currently no federal requirement
regarding blade-stopping time for ride-on lawn equipment.  There is an ANSI recommendation of 5 seconds for
blade stopping following disengagement of the blade control. 11                                                            ^

Digital video of the after-fire tests was acquired to allow  direct  comparison of the OEM and  catalyst-muffler
configurations.  The test was repeated four times for the OEM muffler configuration.  Immediately following the
OEM muffler testing, the test was repeated four times using the catalyst muffler.

Misfire Testing

Engine 255 was used for testing under conditions of partial  ignition misfire.  An optical encoder providing 360
counts per engine revolution (one crank-angle-degree resolution) was installed onto the engine crankshaft output. A
laboratory controller temporarily grounded the ignition coil cut-off circuit based on input from the optical encoder
and the degree of misfire desired.  Initially, encoder data was acquired for 360 counts per revolution at a particular
engine operating condition, and a count of up to  1000 engine combustion  cycles (2000 engine revolutions) was
initiated. When the ignition coil circuit was grounded, a complete 720 crank angle degrees (CAD) (or two complete
crankshaft revolutions) of ignition misfire would occur.  This alleviated the need to track top dead center (TDC) and
spark timing. The series of 1000 cycles could be continuously looped to allow continuous operation at a particular
percentage of ignition misfire. Misfire could be made in equal intervals, so two misfires in 1000 cycles could occur
at cycles 500 and 1000.  Similarly, three misfires could occur following 333, 666, and 999 cycles.  Other misfire
interval combinations were also evaluated. The cycle count of 1000 was chosen arbitrarily and could be adjusted to
other  values to check the effect of duration between misfires or to allow a higher rate of misfire resolution. The
final configuration used during testing utilized random number generation to randomly select the specific cycles on
which misfire would occur, while still allowing selection of the  total percentage of misfire events.  For example,
during prove-out of the misfire generation, the system was configured to cause 3% of the ignition firings to misfire
over 100 complete engine cycles and the random number generator provided misfire occurrences at cycles 12, 25,
89.

The next step was to determine a reasonable operating condition (speed and load) for operating the engine under
partial misfire.  An AC motoring dynamometer was used to map  the load provided by the cutting blade during
engine operation over a range of typical engine speeds.  This essentially provided a torque curve analogous to a             A


                                                   48

-------
"propeller curve" for the conditions under which the cutting blade was spinning but not cutting grass.  The cutting
blade torque curve generated was thus established as the minimum torque point for engine operation.  The engine
was operated with  engine  speed controlled by the engine governor, and misfire was initially induced during
operation on the dynamometer along the generated cutting blade torque curve. Operation of the engine beyond 25%
ignition misfire resulted in extremely erratic engine operation and vibration and premature failure of the coupling
between the engine and the dynamometer. When operated at the 25% misfire condition, the erratic engine operation
would be  immediately noticeable to the operator, causing engine stumbling, audible misfire and backfire, and
greatly reduced ability for the engine pick up load.  Sustained  operation at 25%  misfire was chosen as the
operational point for analysis  of exhaust  system surface temperatures.  Even this operational point should be
considered a conservative estimate of a maximum  misfire level since grass cutting operations and the power-take-
off for the wheel drive system would require more engine torque output than the cutting blade torque curve used
during testing, which was approximately equivalent to torque of the 25% load A-cycle mode 4 test  point at the
speed encountered during misfire.

The engine was tested with the OEM muffler and the catalyst-muffler shown in figure 5-6.  Following initiation of
sustained 25% misfire and stabilization of exhaust gas temperatures measured at the exhaust port, 1R thermal images
were  taken  of both  the OEM  muffler and  catalyst-muffler configurations to allow  comparison of  surface
temperatures.

Simulated Rich Operation

Engine 255 was also used for  simulated rich operation.  A carburetor was modified  by changing the main jet to
provide an air-to-fuel ratio number approximately  1.0 to 1.5 units richer than the standard carburetor jetting. This
air-to-fuel ratio was consistent with test results obtained from a  similar engine previously tested by EPA (engine
#1514) that returned from field operations running excessively rich.  The rich operation was found  to be due to a
float-valve that was partially contaminated with debris.12 The engine was tested in this condition over all 6 modes
of the EPA A-cycle and with both an OEM muffler and with the same catalyst-muffler configuration used for the
misfire testing.

E.      FIELD OPERATION

Field operation  was conducted to:

    1.      Obtain operational experience with both OEM and catalyst-equipped engine configurations

    2.      Provide an accelerated means of accumulating engine hours to assess the emissions  of both OEM
            Phase 2 and catalyst-equipped engines at either mid-life or near the end of useful life

    3.      Provide a means to assess surface temperatures of lawn care equipment during grass cutting operations
            with the engines installed on equipment chassis

Installation into a chassis  was particularly important for  the IR thermal  imaging analysis  of the lawn tractor
applications.  The chassis included heat shielding and the ejectors used with the catalyst-muffler  configurations
were  installed onto the chassis. Cooling air-flow downstream of the engine was also routed through the chassis and
over the catalyst-mufflers to improve heat rejection.  These subsystems could not be adequately duplicated on the
engine dynamometer.

The engines were initially run for at least three hours either on the dynamometer, or on the mower-decks while
cutting grass. An additional two to seven hours of dynamometer run-time followed this. Emissions were monitored
during dynamometer testing until stabilized (~10% coefficient of variance in brake-specific HC+NOx for three
repeated measurements),  which  typically required between five and ten hours  of total operation  from the new
condition, depending on the engine.  The final three repeated measurements were taken as the "low hour" emission
baseline.
                                                   49

-------
The engines were then installed onto standard walk-behind lawn mowers. For the initial stages of field operations, a            *
field test apparatus was constructed that could pull up to nine walk-behind mower decks simultaneously through
large  fields in Southeast Michigan using a garden .tractor (Figures  5-11  and  5-12) to allow a more rapid
accumulation of hours of operation in the field cutting grass. This was done primarily to accelerate the operation of
a large number of Class I,  Phase 2 lawn-mowers to generate  high-hour emissions results for the purposes of
generating emissions inventory data.  Emissions results from the initial stages of field operation can be found in the
Docket to the Nonroad SI Engine Phase 3 rule. 13  The apparatus was equipped with hydraulics that lifted the front
of each mower up when turning around to simulate similar turn maneuvers used during typical operation.

Subsequent stages of field operations, which included all of the Class I and Class II engines for which field data is
reported in this study, were conducted in South Central Texas during the Spring of 2005 (Class II only, Figure 5-
13), in Southwest Tennessee during the fall of 2005 (Class I and Class II, Figure 5-14), and in Florida in early 2006.
In these stages both lawn mowers and lawn tractors were used, and they were operated by individual operators
instead of using the field test apparatus.  Mowing was conducted with the lawn mowers and lawn tractors in an
echelon formation in large fields to prevent debris from contacting adjacent equipment. Lawn mowers and lawn
tractors were also segregated to operate in different sections of each field. A total of six walk-behind lawn mowers
were used in grass cutting operations until they reached approximately 110 hours of operation.  Of the six lawn
mowers, three used  side-valve engines equipped with catalyst-mufflers, two used OHV  engines equipped with
catalyst-mufflers, and one used  a side-valve engine equipped  with an OEM  muffler.  The two  lawn mowers
equipped with OHV engines and catalyst-mufflers were also equipped with air shroud designs that directed air from
the engine cooling fan that exited from the engine cylinder over the outer surface of the catalyst-muffler in a manner
similar to the OEM air shroud design used with these particular lawn mowers. Three  of the catalyst-muffler
equipped lawn mowers (both units with the OHV engines and one with the  side-valve engine) were additionally
equipped with exhaust ejectors to both reduce the temperatures of the exhaust gases leaving the catalyst-muffler and
to improve heat rejection from  muffler and/or air shroud  surfaces.   Both lawn tractors were  equipped with
modifications to engine air shrouding and with exhaust ejectors (see Figure 5.8).

During field operation, up to eight hours of engine run-time per day was possible. Large, level fields were cut. The            •
run sequence each day was as follows:                                                                                  ^

1.      Each  day started by  checking the lubricating oil (and adding if necessary) and topping off the fuel tanks,

2.      The engines were then started and grass cutting operations commenced. During a workday, engines were
only shut down for refueling or poor weather or cutting conditions. Cutting operations ranged from 2  hours to 9
hours per day, depending on weather.

3.      During refueling, oil levels were monitored, and engine oil was added if necessary. Oil consumption was
monitored during the Tennessee field tests.

4.      At the end of each full day of operation, debris was cleaned from the mower decks. During the initial stage
of field testing (southeast Michigan), compressed air  was used to clean the mower decks and  intake air filters.
During the later stages of field  operation, mowing decks were brushed clean and air filters were not  serviced
between normal maintenance intervals unless a loss of engine performance was noticed by the operator.  If air filter
service was required between service intervals due to visible blockage, it typically  involved removing the intake air
filter and brushing accumulated debris from the filter prior to reinstallation (engines 243,244, and 245 only).

5.      Major maintenance consisted of changing the lubricating oil (using manufacturer-specified lubricants)d,
air-filters, and spark-plugs  at the manufacturers-specified intervals.   When intervals were specified  by season
instead of hour level, 25-hours of operation was used as one season.

Field operation continued for a total of approximately 110 hours for the Class 1 engines and 240 hours for the Class
II engines.  Afterwards, the engines were removed from the lawn mowers or lawn tractors for dynamometer testing.
d Lubricants were SAE 30 API SL or  SAE  10w30 API SM (depending on application).  Manufacturer's API
specifications were API SF or better.


                                                   50

-------
                 ^•••^••••••^^•iHllBSIIlMHi^BMBMI^^^^HMIBHMIIH^^Hi^H^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I^^^^^^^Hi^^^H^^^HB
 Figure 5-11: Field test apparatus with lawn mowers cutting grass in Southeast Michigan, late summer 2004. The
 apparatus was equipped hydraulic rams to lift the front of each mower to simulate turns at 10-meter intervals. The
 mower decks were set to a cutting height of three inches while cutting grass that was approximately five to six
 inches in length.

Figure 5-12:  The lawn mowers were stopped for refueling, debris clean-off, and basic checks each hour. This took
approximately 30 minutes, so the mowers were cycled between one hour on and half an hour off with a maximum
of eight hours of actual mower running time per day, depending on weather. Regular (87 octane) unleaded pump
gasoline was supplied to the work site using portable plastic gasoline cans with a trigger-nozzle, but no automatic
shut off.
                                                   51

-------
Figure 5-13:  Lawn tractor cutting grass in Central Texas in the spring of 2005. Regular (87 octane) unleaded
pump-gasoline  was supplied to  the  work site using portable plastic gasoline cans with pour  spouts   Cutting
conditions were relatively dry with a high amount of debris.  Grass length varied from approximately five inches to
approximately 18 inches.  Mower decks were set to a cutting height of approximately three inches.
                                                   52

-------
Figure 5-14: Lawn mower and Lawn tractor cutting grass in Southeast Tennessee in the fall of 2005.  Regular (87
octane) unleaded pump-gasoline was supplied  to the work-sight using portable  plastic gasoline cans with pour
spouts (same fuel cans as in Texas - see Figure 11).  Conditions were cool and wet with a large amount of debris.
Grass length varied from approximately eight inches to approximately 18 inches. Mower decks were set to a cutting
height of approximately  three  inches.   Both wet and dry cutting conditions  were encountered.  Dry cutting
conditions were accompanied with high levels of debris.
 Figure 5-15:  Lawn mower and Lawn tractor cutting grass in Florida in early 2006.  Regular (87 octane) unleaded
 pump-gasoline was supplied to the work-sight using portable plastic gasoline cans with pour spouts.  Conditions
 were hot and dry with tall try grass and a large amount of debris. Grass length varied from approximately five
 inches to approximately twelve inches.  Mower decks were set to a cutting height of approximately three inches.
                                                    53

-------
Acquisition of IR Thermal Images in the Field

Both still images and full-motion video infrared imaging was used to collect surface temperature data during grass
cutting operations in the field in Southwest Tennessee and Florida. Full motion video infrared imaging was used to
allow comparison of OEM and catalyst-equipped lawn  tractors and lawn mowers while cutting grass  in large
(approximately 200-acre), level fields.  The video IR imager was mounted onto a tripod and the cutting paths of the
equipment were arranged such that one piece of equipment passed into the  range of view for the imager.  The
operator of the imager then tracked the equipment for approximately 20 linear  feet.   Approximately  halfway
through, the equipment stopped for 5 seconds directly perpendicular to the imager at a position marked onto the turf
surface to temporarily allow a higher resolution, more precise IR image for each pass in front of the imager. Passes
were taken from both sides of the lawn tractors, and from the exhaust-muffler side of the lawn mowers.

Both  full motion video  and still  imaging was used to measure  surface temperatures during timed hot soaks
following sustained (approximately 30-45 minutes) grass cutting with both the lawn tractors and the lawn  mowers.
Both full motion video and still imaging were also used to measure turf surface temperatures during extended idling
of lawn tractors.   Initial measurements  conducted during equipment  set-up that  showed  that Turf surface
temperatures underneath  and in front of the lawn tractor stabilized after approximately five minutes of idling with
the engine speed setting adjusted to "high". Brief IR measurements of turf surface temperatures following 5 to 30
minutes of idling showed no significant difference versus just five minutes of idling, thus the final measurements of
turf surface temperatures were taken for approximately two minutes of idling following an initial five minutes of
idle for turf surface temperature stabilization.
1 P.A. Sandefur, W.M. Kindness, "Catalytic Converter Having a Venturi Formed From Two Stamped Components",
U.S. Patent No. 5,548,955,1996.
2 G.J. Gracyalny, P.A. Sandefur, "Multi-Pass Catalytic Converter", U.S. Patent No. 5,732,555, 1998.
3 Y. Yamaki, H. Kaneko, K.Nakazato, "Engine Exhaust Apparatus", U.S. Patent No. 5,431,013,1994.
4 A. Shiki, M. Nakano, H. Nakazima, "Muffler with Catalyst for Internal Combustion Engine", U.S. Patent No.
4,579,194,1986.
5 V. Vavilov,  V. Demin,  "Infrared thermographic inspection of operating  smokestacks", Infrared Physics &
Technology, Volume 43, Issues 3-5 , June 2002, Pages 229-232.
6 R. Monti, G. P. Russo, "Non-intrusive methods for temperature  measurements in  liquid zones in microgravity
environments", Institute of Aerodynamics ", Acta Astronautica, Volume 11, Issue 9 , September 1984, Pages 543-
551.
7 H. Wiggenhauser, "Active IR-appiications in  civil engineering", Infrared Physics & Technology, Volume 43,
Issues 3-5 , June 2002, Pages 233-238.
8 Title 40, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 90, Subpart E, Appendix A.
9 S. Mizusawa, "Silencer for and Internal Combustion Engine", U.S.  Patent No. 4,124,091,1978.
10 Title 16, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1205.            ,    •
" ANSI  B71.1-2003, "American National Standard for Consumer  Turf Care Equipment - Walk-Behind Mowers
and Ride-On Machines with Mowers - Safety Specifications".
12 "Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines, Vessels, and Equipment Document", Docket ID
"EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0089", tests 1514-4,1514-5 and 1514-6.
13 "Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines, Vessels, and Equipment Document", Docket ID
"EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0089".
                                                  54

-------
6.      Test  Results—Comparison  between  EPA's  Phase  3  Prototypes
        and Current  Engine Systems
In this chapter we will discuss the results of laboratory and field testing of the Class I and Class II engines described
in Chapter 5, tables 5-1 and 5-2, respectively.

A.      EMISSIONS RESULTS

A summary of the exhaust emissions results for the tested engine configurations over the EPA A-cycle may be
found in Appendix B. Emissions levels of all of the catalyst-configured systems tested were consistent with the
California Tier 3 and the expected Federal Phase 3  emission standards.  In many cases, HC+NOx emissions were
well below the expected Phase 3 standards. An increase in exhaust back-pressure was expected with the addition of
catalyst-mufflers to the engines, but engine power output and load response was comparable to  that of the engines
using OEM mufflers.

B.      LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Surface temperature measurements by infrared thermal imaging — Class 1 Side-valve Engines

Engine 258:

Figure 6-1 shows infrared  thermal images  for A-cycle modes 1, 3 and 5 taken during laboratory testing of engine
258 with a catalyst-muffler and with an OEM muffler following approximately 10 hours of engine break-in  and
catalyst "degreening".' The  catalyst-muffler used was the  European catalyst-muffler with the stamped secondary-
air-venturi, modified to increase the catalyst substrate volume to approximately 40 cc (2-20 cc 400 cpsi ceramic
monoliths, similar to the "middle" unit in Figure 5-2) as described in Chapter 5. The peak temperatures on the
catalyst-muffler were near  the exhaust outlet The through-bolts attaching the muffler to the engine and one of the
welds between the outer and inner halves of the catalyst-muffler were also  at similar temperatures  to the outlet.
This particular weld was a result of modifications  made to the muffler to increase  catalyst volume. Production
mufflers typically use a folded  seam rather than a continuous weld to join  stamped halves together, and folded
seams tend to hold in less heat.

The peak temperatures for the OEM muffler were  at the muffler through-bolts and  the lower  half of the outside
surface of the-muffler, immediately  downstream of where the exhaust expands through the muffler baffle. The
OEM muffler peak temperatures were significantly hotter than those of the catalyst-muffler at all six of the A-cycle
test modes, which covered the entire operational range of the engine.  The heat-affected surface area above 350 °C
covers a larger  area  of the OEM  muffler  at high load than was the case for the catalyst-muffler.   While cooler
temperatures of the catalyst-muffler versus the OEM muffler initially seem counterintuitive, the catalyst-muffler has
a number of design elements  that allow it to reject heat more effectively than the OEM muffler, including:

    1.  The catalyst-muffler routes  the exhaust gases through three  stages of baffles (two pre-catalyst, one post-
        catalyst) vs. a single stage baffle for the OEM muffler.

    2.  The catalyst-muffler has approximately double the external surface area of the OEM muffler to reject heat
        over.

    3.  The catalyst-muffler has a longer internal path (including one flow reversal) to reject heat through.

    4.  Approximately 25% of the  catalyst-muffler surface area is located directly in the cooling air-flow of the
        engine  fan immediately downstream of the cylinder fins. Very little cooling air reaches the OEM muffler
        due to its positioning well forward of where much of the cooling air exhausts  from the engine.
* Catalyst degreening involves operation of a catalyst in engine exhaust long enough for an initial degree of thermal
sintering of PGM to occur. This was performed for emissions testing purposes only.
                                                 55

-------
Engine 236

Figure 6-2 shows infrared thermal images for A-cycle modes 1, 3 and 5 taken during laboratory testing of engine
236 following approximately 10 hours of engine break-in and catalyst "degreening".  The catalyst-muffler was
similar in construction to the one used with engine 258 except  that the  catalyst used a 200 cpsi, 44 cc metal
monolith with a tri-metallic washcoating formulation, and the inlet location  was changed to allow fitment to engine
236 since this engine is from a different engine family than engine 258.

This engine had peak OEM-muffler temperatures that were 50 to 60 degrees higher than that of engine 258.  As a
result, both the catalyst-muffler and OEM muffler surface temperatures were higher for engine 236 than what was
observed for  engine 258.  Comparing the catalyst-muffler in figure 6-2 to that in figure 6-1, the section of the
catalyst-muffler containing the catalyst substrate was considerably hotter than that in figure 6-1, in part due to lower
air-flow rate from the cooling fan and higher cooling air temperatures for engine 236 relative to engine 258. The
OEM cooling fan was integral to the flywheel and used six constant cross section flat-paddle-type blades. There is
substantial potential to  reduce catalyst-muffler surface temperatures for engine 236 via use of a higher efficiency,
higher volume cooling fan and by paying close attention to the routing of cooling air-flow relative to the muffler
position.

As with engine 258, the peak surface temperatures with catalyst-muffler were significantly cooler than those of the
OEM muffler at each of the A-cycle test points. The hottest areas of the catalyst-muffler were the portion of the
muffler that contained the catalyst substrate  (the area center-right  of the images) and the continuous weld running
along the top of the catalyst-muffler.  The hottest area of the OEM muffler was on the outer surface directly
opposite from the exhaust port outlet.  The heat-affected surface area above 350 °C was comparable for the OEM
muffler and the catalyst-muffler.
                                                   56

-------
                 Catalyst-muffler,
               venturi secondary air
            100% Load - Wide Open Throttle
                                         25.0
          Maximum surface temperature: 471 °C

                 50% Load-Mode 3
                                         100
                                         25.0
          Maximum surface temperature: 351 °C

                  10% Load-Mode 5
                                          100

                                          25.0
          Maximum surface temperature: 332 °C
         OEM Muffler

  100% Load - Wide Open Throttle
                                                                                             600.0


                                                                                             500 !


                                                                                             400

                                                                                            -300 ^


                                                                                            •200


                                                                                            -100
                                                                                           i-25.0
Maximum surface temperature: 511 °C

        50% Load-Mode 3
                                100

                                25.0
Maximum surface temperature: 412°C

        10% Load-Mode 5
                                                                                            -600.0

                                                                                             500

                                                                                            j-400

                                                                                            -300  ''

                                                                                            -200;

                                                                                             100
                               t-25,0
Maximum surface temperature:  397 °C
Figure 6-1: Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for side-valve
engine 258 at low hours, equipped with a catalyst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler (right) for modes 1,3 and 5 of
the A-cycle.
                                                   57

-------
                 Catalyst-muffler,
              venturi secondary air
           100% Load - Wide Open Throttle
                                    r 600.0
        Maximum surface temperature: 494 °C

                50% Load - Mode 3
                             500 - •

                             400 -




                             •'200 " .

                             -100

 _                           -25.0:  =
Maximum surface temperature:  420 °C

        10% Load - Mode 5
                                     25.0
        Maximum surface temperature:  433 °C
                                                            OEM Muffler
                                                                         Throttle
                                                                              -600.0!.;
                                                                                     -500,


                                                                                      400


                                                                                      300


                                                                                      •200


                                                                                      -100
                                                 Maximum surface temperature: 579 "C

                                                          50% Load - Mode 3
                                                                                       100
                                                         	250
                                                         Maximum surface temperature: 493 °C

                                                                  10% Load -Mode 5
                                                  Maximum surface temperature: 497 °C
Figure 6-2: Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for side-valve
engine 236 at low hours, equipped with a catalyst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler (right) for modes 1, 3 and 5 of
the A-cycle.
                                                 58

-------
Infrared thermal imagine - Class 1 OHV Engines

In some respects, Class I OHV engines present more of a design challenge with respect to exhaust component heat
rejection than their side-valve counterparts. Peak exhaust gas temperatures measured at the muffler inlet can be 50-
100 °C higher at some operating conditions when compared to side-valve engines used in similar walk-behind lawn
mower applications. In some cases, OEM muffler configurations tested incorporated shrouds around the muffler to
enhance heat rejection via forced convection using cooling air from the engine cooling fan (engines 243 and 244).
Other OEM muffler designs for OHV engines were generally similar to those used with side-valve engines (engines
241, 255). The shrouded designs maintained a minimum clearance between the muffler and the shroud to prevent
debris accumulation, similar to the clearances  used to prevent debris accumulation within the engine shrouding of
the cylinder and cylinder-head.  The catalyst-muffler  configurations tested by EPA with engines 243 and 244
incorporated similar shrouding, and in one case (engine 243) used a modified OEM air-shroud.

Engine 241

Figure 6-3 shows infrared thermal images for A-cycle modes 1, 3 and 5 acquired during laboratory testing of engine
241 following approximately 110 hours of dynamometer aging (near the end of useful life).  The catalyst-muffler
used was similar to that used with engine 258 (40 cc, 400  cpsi ceramic monolith, top of figure 5-2).  The muffler
baffles and muffler inlet were reconfigured, and the muffler did not use through-bolts exposed to the exhaust flow.
No modifications were made to the stamped secondary-air venturi,  The exhaust gas temperatures for this OHV
engine family were typically higher than those observed for  side-valve engines (e.g., engine 258).  Peak surface
temperatures for the catalyst-muffler occurred on the outer muffler shell, immediately downstream of the catalyst
substrate, and on the weld along  the lower parting seam of the muffler shell. Peak surface temperatures for the
OEM muffler occurred along the outer-most surface of the muffler shell and near the stub-pipe exhaust outlet. Peak
surface temperatures for the catalyst-muffler were cooler than the OEM muffler for the 100% load, WOT condition,
and were comparable to the OEM muffler over the remaining steady-state operating conditions of the A-cycle.  The
OEM muffler's highest surface temperatures generally covered a larger surface area of the outer muffler shell than
was the case for the catalyst-muffler.

Hot  soak tests conducted from the 100% load WOT condition show the  catalyst-muffler cooler  than the OEM
muffler for the first 30 seconds following shutdown (figure 6-4).   At one minute following shutdown from WOT,
the temperature decay of the catalyst-muffler decreased due to conductive heat transfer from the internal surfaces to
the outer surfaces of the catalyst-muffler.  Thus at 30 seconds after shutdown from WOT, the catalyst-muffler  peak
temperatures were approximately the same temperature as  the OEM muffler rather than cooler, and at one minute
following shutdown, the  catalyst-muffler peak  temperatures were approximately  80 °C higher than the OEM
muffler. After approximately two minutes following shutdown from the WOT condition, peak temperatures for the
catalyst-muffler were again comparable to the OEM muffler (figures 6-4 and 6-5).

During hot-soak tests from the 50% load point (mode  3), surface temperatures of the catalyst-muffler and OEM
muffler were comparable throughout the hot-soak period (figures 6-6 and  6-7).  The initial hot-soak temperatures
obtained following sustained 50% load operation were also more comparable to exhaust system peak surface
temperatures measured field operation.  After approximately 2-minutes following shut-down from 50% load,  peak
temperatures of both the OEM muffler and the catalyst-muffler were below 250 °C, which is approximately the
auto-ignition temperature of gasoline. This corresponded well to the manufacturer's recommendations within the
Owner's Manual for this engine that the operator wait two minutes following shut-down before removing the cap to
the fuel tank for refueling.

Engine 255

Figure 6-8 shows infrared thermal images for A-cycle  modes 1,  3, and 5 acquired  during  laboratory testing of
engine 255 with a catalyst-muffler and with an OEM muffler following approximately 10 hours of engine break-in
and catalyst "degreening". The catalyst-muffler used was the same unit shown in figure 5-6.  Although engine 255
is from the  same engine family  as  engine 241, the catalyst-muffler has several  key differences.  In order to
simultaneously enhance emission control performance and  heat rejection, part of the catalyst volume was relocated
upstream of the secondary-air-venturi by mounting a catalyzed-tube pre-catalyst in the short length of exhaust pipe
                                                  59

-------
between the exhaust port and the entrance to the muffler body.  The catalyst substrate size was reduced, the cell            *
density was halved, and a metal monolith construction was substituted for the cordierite monoliths used with engine
241. A tri-metallic washcoating formulation was used, although PGM loading was similar to that used with engine
241 on a per-unit of catalyst volume basis.  The increased catalyst efficiency of this catalyst-muffler configuration
allowed a reduction in secondary-air entrainment.  Two of the four air inlet holes in the stamped venturi were
blocked to reduce  the volume of secondary-air flow drawn by the stamped  venturi.  In the end, the  level  of
HC+NOx emissions control for the catalyst-muffler tested with engine 255  was approximately equivalent to the
system tested with engine 241, but with approximately 50% less secondary air flow, and an overall reduction in total
catalyst volume and PGM. CO oxidation at low operational hours was reduced from approximately 50% over the
A-cycle to approximately 15%.

Peak surface temperatures for the catalyst-muffler were in the area where  the exhaust flow turns 180 degrees,
between the catalyst outlet and the muffler outlet.  Peak surface temperatures for the OEM muffler were on the
outer-surface near where the exhaust expands through the muffler baffles.  The peak surface temperatures of the
catalyst-muffler were approximately 30 to 60 degrees cooler than the OEM muffler for all six modes of the A-cycle
test and were also reduced relative to the catalyst-muffler tested with engine 241. The  heat-affected surface area
above 350 °C for the catalyst-muffler was comparable to that of the OEM muffler.

Engine 244

Figure 6-9 shows infrared thermal  images for A-cycle  modes  1, 3, and 5 acquired during laboratory testing  of
engine 244 with a catalyst-muffler and with an OEM muffler following approximately 10 hours of engine break-in
and catalyst "degreening".  The catalyst-muffler used was similar to that used with engine 258, but with a different
catalyst (44 cc, 200 cpsi metal monolith, tri-metallic  washcoating formulation).  The muffler baffles and muffler
inlet were reconfigured, and the muffler did not use through-bolts exposed to the exhaust flow.  A steel  shroud was
fabricated to route  air-flow over the catalyst-muffler in a manner similar to  that  of the  OEM muffler  and shroud
used with this engine.  An exhaust ejector was incorporated into the catalyst-muffler shroud design  to cool the             M
muffler outlet (the hottest part on the OEM muffler configuration) and to provide  additional cooling to  the exhaust             •
gases  exiting the catalyst-muffler.  The use of the ejector  dropped  the peak temperature  of exposed surfaces  by             ^
approximately 200 °C relative to the OEM configuration  over the six modes of the A-cycle test. Exposed  surfaces
were below the  auto-ignition point of gasoline (-250 °C) at all of the tested conditions, including WOT.  The tested
catalyst-muffler configuration  maintained 100-200 °C cooler exposed peak surface temperatures for the entire five
minute timed hot-soak period for hot soaks from both the  WOT (see Figures  6-10 and 6-11) and  50% load (see
Figures 6-12 and 6-13) conditions when compared to the OEM configuration. The peak temperatures of the shroud
used with the catalyst-muffler increased slightly during the first minute following engine shut-down, and then
decreased throughout the remainder of the timed soak period.

Engine 243

The tests conducted with  engine  244 were repeated  with a nearly identical engine  (engine  243) that also
incorporated further improvements in the design of  the catalyst-muffler, air shrouding and exhaust  ejector.  A
completely different muffler design was used which included a new  concentric  tube venturi.  During development,
secondary-air flow was  progressively reduced to minimize CO while maintaining HC+NOx  control  above 40%
efficiency over  the A-cycle.  The size reduction of the muffler enabled by the improvements allowed use of a
modified version of the OEM muffler shroud. The exhaust ejector was lengthened approximately 25% to  increase
the draw of air through the ejector.  The changes resulted in  reduced CO  oxidation and a  further 20 to 40  °C
reduction in external surface  temperatures relative to the  catalyst-muffler and shroud  configuration  tested with
engine 244 (figure 6-14).  Peak temperatures of exposed  surfaces  were below  200 °C for all operating points,
including the region near the exhaust outlet from the ejector. During the hot soak from the WOT condition, peak
surface temperatures were similar to the catalyst-muffler tested  with engine 244 and approximately 200 °C cooler
than peak temperatures with the OEM system (figures 6-15 and 6-16). Peak temperatures during hot-soak from the
50% load condition were 20-40 °C cooler than the earlier catalyst-muffler configuration, and approximately 100-
300 °C cooler than the OEM system (figures 6-17 and 6-18).
                                                  60

-------
                 Catalyst-muffler,
               venturi secondary air
            100% Load - Wide Open Throttle
                                     1-6000
                                      100 .,

        _                            25.0
        Maximum surface temperature: 447 °C


                50% Load -Mode 3
                                      -600.0

                                         •
                                      500


                                      400


                                      -.30d>


                                      •200


                                      -100

                                      -25.0

        Maximum surface temperature: 362 °C


                10% Load -Mode 5
                                     -600.0


                                      -500


                                      400
                                      200
                                     -100

                                     -25.0
        Maximum surface temperature: 296 °C
          OEM Muffler
                        Throttle
                              600.0:
                             r 25.0 i:
Maximum surface temperature: 480 °C


        50% Load-Mode 3



                             -500 ...


                             •400




                             -200


                              100.'


Maximum surface temperature: 371 °C


        10% Load-Mode 5
                             -600.0

                             bob  ;
                                                                                        200
                             -m •

                             -25.0
Maximum surface temperature: 300 "C
Figure 6-3:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for OHV
engine 241 at high hours, equipped with a catalyst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler (right) for modes 1, 3 and 5
of the A-cycle.
                                                  61

-------
          Modified Catalyst-muffler
       Maximum surface temperature
       Maximum surface temperature
       Maximum surface temperature:  384 °C

                                    -'raoo

                                    •500

                                    •400

                                     300 >C

                                    •200

                                     100

                                    I- 25.0
      Maximum surface temperature: 324 °C
                                                 O-seconds
                                                 30-seconds
                                                  I-minute
2-minutes
                          OEM Muffler
                                                                                               25.0
                 Maximum surface temperature: 485 °C
                                                                                                  •c
                                              100,
                                              25.0
                 Maximum surface temperature: 418°C

                                             rSOOO
                 Maximum surface temperature: 301 °C
                                              100.;
                                              25.0:
                 Maximum surface temperature:  301 °C
Figure 6-4:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine
241 during a hot-soak period immediately after engine shutdown from sustained operation at WOT, 100% load (A-
cycle mode 1).
                                                    62

-------
o
o
                            Modified Catalyst-muffler
                                                     •100
                        	                       -25.0
                         Maximum surface temperature: 219 "C
                                                                  3-minutes
                                                                  4-minutes
         OEM Muffler
                                                                                   Maximum surface temDerature:  258 °C
                             100.,
 	                          25,0
Maximum surface temperature: 218 "C
                  Figure 6-5: Continuation of the hot-soak shown in figure 6-4.
                                                                     63

-------
                 Catalyst-muffler,
               venturi secondary air
            100% Load - Wide Open Throttle
                                        100
                                        25.0
          Maximum surface temperature: 440 °C

                 50% Load-Mode 3
                                      1*25.0; •?
          Maximum surface temperature: 310 °C
                  10% Load-Mode 5
                                        -500.0


                                        500

                                        -4Do:

                                        30D*<

                                        200


                                        -100

                                        25.0
          Maximum surface temperature: 248°C
         OEM Muffler

  100% Load - Wide Open Throttle
                               600.0


                               sop

                               400

                              ^




                              -1DQ,  :

                              -25.0  ;
Maximum surface temperature: 470 °C

        50% Load-Mode 3
Maximum surface temperature: 360 °C

        10% Load-Mode 5
                               100

                               25.0
Maximum surface temperature:  296 °C
Figure 6-8:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for OHV
engine 255 at low hours, equipped with a catalyst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler (right) for modes 1,3 and 5 of
the A-cycle.
                                                   66

-------
         Catalyst-muffler,
       venturi secondary air
    100% Load - Wide Open Throttle
                             p-GOp.0

                              500

                              400:

                             •300 ^



                             •;1pO  '
                             :25.0  :
Maximum surface temperature: 230 °C

        50% Load - Mode 3
                                      100;  .
                                      25.0
        Maximum surface temperature: 102°C

                10% Load - Mode 5
                                     -6000

                                      500

                                      400

                                     -300, T

                                     •200

                                     -100
                                     -25.0
        Maximum surface temperature: 161 °C
                                                                     OEM Muffler
                                                              100% Load - Wide Ooen Throttle
                                                          Maximum surface temperature:  551 °C

                                                                   50% Load-Mode 3
                                                                                2S.O
                                                  Maximum surface temperature:  421 °C

                                                           10% Load -Mode 5
                                                                               -600.0

                                                                                500 .

                                                                               -400 '  '•
                                                                                200.
                                                                                •100
                                                                                •25.0 '
                                                   Maximum surface temperature:  363 °C
Figure 6-9:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for OHV
engine 244 at high hours, equipped with a catalyst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler (right) for modes 1, 3 and 5
of the A-cycle.  The OEM muffler configuration was equipped with a full shroud that directed air-flow over the
muffler. This configuration was largely reproduced for the catalyst-muffler. An exhaust-ejector was also added for
improved shroud and exhaust-gas cooling (dark blue rectangular area).
                                                  67

-------
          Modified Catalyst-muffler
       Maximum surface temperature: 228 °C
       Maximum surface temperature: 234  C
                                   25.0
       Maximum surface temperature: 240 °C
                                   6000


                                   500


                                   400


                                   300 ^


                                   200:


                                   •100,

                                   25.0 :
       Maximum surface temperature: 215 °C
                                                0-seconds
                                                30-seconds
                                                 1-minute
2-minutes
                          OEM Muffler
                 Maximum surface temperature
                 Maximum surface temperature
                 Maximum surface temperature
                 Maximum surface temperature
Figure 6-10:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine
244 during a hot-soak period immediately after engine shutdown from sustained operation at WOT, 100% load (A-
cycle mode 1).
                                                   68

-------
          Modified Catalvst-nniffler
     Maximum surface temperature: 196  C
     Maximum surface temperature: 180°C

                                  -6M.D ••;

                                  •son
                                       •
                                  •'*»  .

                                  •a*.
-------
           Modified CatalYSt-muffler
       Maximum surface temperature:  168 °C
Maximum surface temperature:  173 °C


                             -600.0; '•


                             •SOO: •'j


                             -400


                             •300:'p:


                             -200 ''..


                             -100-


Maximum surface temperature:  176°C
                                     500


                                     400


                                     300


                                     200:


                                     100:
       Maximum surface temperature: 169 "C
                                                  0-seconds
                                                  30-seconds
                                                   1-minute
                                           2-minutes
                                                                      OEM Muffler
                                                                                                  25.0
                                                             Maximum surface temperature: 41 1 °C
                                                                    Maximum surface temperature:
                                                                    Maximum surface temperature:
 -Eoao


 -600?;


  400
   \-  "•'•!

  300 T


  200




"-25.0"

389 °C


 rSOO.O


  500


  -400


  •30B 5'


  -200 _  •


  •100

  250   •

357 °C


 -600.0


  •SDD


  400
                                                                                                 •100

                                                                                                 Tab-
                                                             Maximum surface temperature: 321 "C
Figure 6-12: Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine
244 during  a hot-soak period immediately after engine shutdown from sustained operation at 50% load (A-cycle
mode 3).
                                                     70

-------
          Modified Catalyst-muffler
                                  -6000
                                  •500


                                   400
                             •100



Maximum surface temperature:  158°C


                             rGOO.O:


                             •500.,,


                             •400


                              300*


                              200 .


                              ™



Maximum surface temperature:  148 °C


                           —-KfflD


                             •500  ,.


                              400' • •-
                                   •200
                                   •100

                                   •25.0
     Maximum surface temperature: 135 °C
                                                3-minutes
                                                4-minutes
                                                5-tninutes
                                                                     OEM Muffler
                                                                                                rc;
                                                               Maximum surface temperature:
-EOO.O


 '500'!-


 •400'


 300
 .  •  ' !

 •200..",•


 'ffl '"'•••

 25.0:.

284 °C
                                                                                             100  '

                                                                                             25.0  '
                                                               Maximum surface temperature: 251 °C

                                                                                            r6£B.D
                                                                                        400


                                                                                        300


                                                                                       -200


                                                                                       •100

                                                                                        25.0
                                                          Maximum surface temperature: 224 °C
Figure 6-13: Continuation of the hot-soak shown in figure 6-12.
                                                   71

-------
                 Catalyst-muffler,
               venturi secondary air
            100% Load - Wide Open Throttle
                                    r600.0.i,

                                     500

                                     •400

                                     •300 ^

                                     -200  . •

                                     •100

                                     250 ,
        Maximum surface temperature: 184°C

                50% Load - Mode 3
                                   —-QX.O

                                     •500

                                     -400

                                     •300 >C

                                     •200

                                     100

                                     -25.0
        Maximum surface temperature: 125 °C

                10% Load - Mode 5
                                      100
                                      250
        Maximum surface temperature: 101 °C
          OEM Muffler
                        Throttle
                             ;EOO.O]:
                              250;
Maximum surface temperature: 551 °C

        50% Load - Mode 3
                              500
Maximum surface temperature: 421 °C

        10% Load-Mode 5
                              25.0
Maximum surface temperature: 363 °C
Figure 6-14:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for OHV
engine 243 at high hours, equipped with a catalyst-muffler (left) compared to an engine from the same engine
family (engine 244) equipped with an  OEM muffler (right) for modes 1, 3 and 5 of the A-cycle. In this case, the
catalyst-muffler used a concentric tube venturi with an annular exhaust inlet.  The OEM muffler configuration was
equipped with a full shroud that directed air-flow over the muffler.  This configuration was largely reproduced for
the catalyst-muffler via modifications to the OEM shroud.  An exhaust-ejector was also added for improved shroud
and exhaust-gas cooling.
                                                  72

-------
                                    6000
          Modified Catalyst-muffler
                                    25,0
       Maximum surface temperature: 1 82 °C
                                    •m
                                    400

                                    .MO'.

                                    200

                                    •100

                                    •25.0;
       Maximum surface temperature:  164 °C
  500

  •400 :

  m*-.
     •i; '•

  200 -,

  . 100-•••!.•:

 E-2SO,
177 "C
       Maximum surface temperature:
       Maximum surface temperature:
                                                  0-seconds
               30-seconds
                                                   I-minute
                                                  2-minutes
                                          OEM Muffler
                                                              25.0;
                                Maximum surface temperature: 526 °C

                                                             •600.0 ".


                                                             •500  '.
                                                              300

                                                              200 -\

                                                              •100  ';
                                                              •SO: .,
                                 Maximum surface temperature: 527 "C
Maximum surface temperature: 483 °C

                             •600.0 ,:

                             •500
                                                                                                •200 ..

                                                                                                 100

                                                                                                -Z6.0 '
                                 Maximum surface temperature: 418 °C
Figure 6-15: Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine
243  (left) and  engine 244  (right)  during a hot-soak period immediately  after engine shutdown from sustained
operation at WOT, 100% load (A-cycle mode 1).
                                                     73

-------
     Maximum surface temperature:
     Modified Catalyst-muffler
                            pEOOO

                             •500

                             •400

                             •300 *

                              200

                             •100
                             -250
                             168°C

                              600.0

                             •500  '

                             -400

                              300 ^

                             •200

                              100
                              25.0
                             183°C

                           •rBOOO ;

                              500 ' =



                              ill

                              200;

                              100  ..
                                  i
 _     	  _    	   _   SOf :C
Maximum surface temperature:  162 °C
                                   500

                                   400  :

                                   300;'Pi

                                  s-200;, /•
Maximum surface temperature:  155 °C
      Maximum surface temperature:
                                                3-minutes
                                                4-minutes
                                                5-minutes
                                           6-minutes
                                                                          OEM Muffler
                                                                                             25.0
                                                          Maximum surface temperature: 363 °C
                                                          Maximum surface temperature:  319 °C

                                                                                       -600.0  .
                                                                                       •400

                                                                                       •300

                                                                                        200

                                                                                       -ion

                                                                                        25.0
                                                               Maximum surface temperature: 280 °C
                                                                                             25.0...
                                                               Maximum surface temperature: 248 'C
Figure 6-16: Continuation of the hot-soak shown in figure 6-15.
                                                   74

-------
          Modified Catalyst-muffler
                                   1-25.0 "
       Maximum surface temperature:  115 °C

                                   -600.0

                                   -500 :".

                                   •400,

                                      '•c-
       Maximum surface temperature: 120 C
                                    ao! -
       Maximum surface temperature: 111 °C
                                    25.0
       Maximum surface temperature: 111 °C
                                                 0-seconds
                                                 30-seconds
                                                  1-minute
                                                 2-minutes
          OEM Muffler
Maximum surface temperature: 411 °C
 Maximum surface temperature: 389 °C
_
 Maximum surface temperature: 357 °C
                             -600.0


                             •500


                              400


                              300


                             -200


                              100

                             1-250
                                                                                                  •c
 Maximum surface temperature: 321 °C
Figure 6-17:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine
243 (left) and 244 (right) during a hot-soak period immediately after engine shutdown from sustained operation at
50% load (A-cycle mode 3).
                                                    75

-------
     Maximum surface temperature:  132 "C

                                  r-600.0

                                  •500  '

                                  -400.
     Maximum surface temperature:  112°C
     Maximum surface temperature:  113 "C
                                                3-minutes
                                                4-minutes
                                                5-minutes
                                                                         OEM Muffler
                                                                                            •6000 '
Maximum surface temperature
 •160 -'
 -25.0- '
284 "C
Maximum surface temperature
Maximum surface temperature
                                                                                           rEOOQ


                                                                                            500
                             •300


                             •200
 -2S.Oi
224 °C
Figure 6-18: Continuation of the hot-soak shown in figure 6-17.
                                                  76

-------
fafrared thermal imaging - Class IIOHV Engines

Infrared thermal images are shown for three of the Class II lawn tractor engine types tested by EPA. It should be
noted that the routing of cooling air through the lawn tractor chassis is important for both engine and exhaust system
cooling.  Also, for the catalyst-equipped configurations, the routing of cooling air through the chassis was modified
to enhance cooling of exhaust system surfaces.  Forced cooling of this  type could not be adequately replicated
during engine dynamometer testing, so the test results presented should be  seen as worst case with respect to surface
temperatures.  Please refer  to the field test results to see comparisons of engines and exhaust configurations as
installed in the lawn tractor chassis.

Engine 231

Figure 6-19 shows infrared thermal images for A-cycle modes 1, 3 and 5  taken during laboratory testing of engine
231 equipped with a catalyst-muffler and EFI compared to an OEM configuration following approximately 10 hours
of engine break-in and catalyst "degreening" and an  additional 10 hours of operation  accumulated during engine
management system development. The catalyst-muffler used was similar to the one pictured in the lower right of
figure 5-7. The peak  temperatures for the catalyst-muffler were on the surfaces of the head-pipe and on the surfaces
adjacent to a series of baffles located in the lower half of the muffler. The peak temperatures of the OEM muffler
were on the surfaces of the head-pipe and on the upper half of the muffler,  immediately upstream of the first muffler
baffle. Comparable peak temperatures were found for both the catalyst-muffler and the OEM muffler for all six
steady-state operating modes of the A-cycle. Surface temperatures for both configurations were approximately 100
°C higher than what was measured for the Class I configurations.

Engine 251

Figure 6-20 shows infrared thermal images for A-cycle modes 1, 3 and 5  taken during laboratory testing of engine
251 equipped with a catalyst-muffler and  an OEM muffler.  Engine 251 was from the same engine family as engine
231. The catalyst-muffler used was similar to the one shown in the middle-right of figure 5-7, but with the outlet on
the bottom of the muffler. Peak surface temperatures for both the catalyst-muffler and the OEM muffler were on
the head-pipe and the region of the muffler  immediately  downstream of the  head-pipe.  Comparable  peak
temperatures were found for both the catalyst-muffler and the OEM muffler for all six modes of the A-cycle.

Hot soak tests were conducted with this engine from the 50% load condition (see figure 6-21 to 6-23). The cooling
of the catalyst-muffler, as indicated by peak surface temperatures, lagged  approximately one minute behind that of
the OEM muffler, probably due to the increased mass of the catalyst-muffler in comparison with the OEM muffler.
The time required for surface temperatures to cool to 250  °C was approximately six minutes for the catalyst-muffler
and five minutes for the OEM muffler.

Engine 254

Figure 6-24 shows infrared thermal images for A-cycle modes 1, 3 and 5  taken during laboratory testing of engine
254 equipped with a catalyst-muffler and an OEM muffler.  The catalyst-muffler used on engine 254 differed from
the catalyst muffler used on engine 251 in several ways.  The head-pipe used a double-wall construction to reduce
its temperature. The overall substrate volume was reduced and divided into 2 parallel substrates to reduce exhaust
back-pressure. Additionally, 100 cpsi metal-monolith construction was used instead of 200 cpsi, reducing cost and
further reducing exhaust back-pressure.   Peak temperatures were comparable between the catalyst-muffler and the
OEM muffler systems for  all  six modes of the A-cycle.  The double-wall construction reduced peak surface
temperatures of the head-pipe used with the catalyst-muffler by approximately 150 °C at moderate to high-load
conditions. Similar double-wall construction could also be applied to other parts of the exhaust system to reduce
peak temperatures in specific locations.

During hot soak testing on engine 254  from sustained  operation at WOT, cooling  of the catalyst-muffler was
comparable to the OEM muffler for the first 60 seconds, and then lagged behind the OEM system by one to two
minutes for the remainder of the timed hot soak test (see Figures 6-25 to 6-27). During the hot-soak tests from the
50% load condition, the catalyst-muffler peak temperatures over the first  60 seconds cooled off faster than for the
                                                  77

-------
OEM muffler. From approximately two minutes after shut-down to the end of the soak test, the cooling of catalyst-
muffler peak surface temperatures lagged approximately one to two minutes behind those of the OEM muffler,
similar to the WOT hot-soak conditions (see figures 6-28 and 6-29).
            EFI w-catalyst, Engine 231
     100% Load - Wide Open Throttle - Mode 1
                                 r60Q.O
                                  100
                                  25.0
        Maximum surface temperature: 558 °C

               50% Load -Mode 3
                                •r 600.0
                                  100 : '

                                  25.0 n'; -
        Maximum surface temperature: 512°C

                10% Load - Mode S
                                   25.0;
        Maximum surface temperature: 482 °C
     OEM Configuration, Engine 231
100% Load - Wide Open Throttle - Mode 1
                           Mr 600.0

                             500

                             400

                             •300 T
                                  j'
                             •200

                             -100  '

                             -25.0'
   Maximum surface temperature: 613°C

          50% Load-Mode3
                              25.0 ,.;
   Maximum surface temperature:  542  °C

           10% Load -Mode 5
                              100
                              25.0
    Maximum surface temperature: 470 °C
 Figure 6-19:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine
 231 at low hours, equipped with a open-loop EFI and a high-efficiency catalyst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler
 (right).
                                                78

-------
      OEM Carburetor w-catalyst, Engine 251
    100% Load - Wide Open Throttle - Mode 1
                                     .r 600.0
 500:


-400
                                     -100;
       Maximum surface temperature: 591 .7 °C

               50% Load -Mode 3
                                      100
                                      250
       Maximum surface temperature: 529.7 °C

               10% Load - Mode 5
                                      100

                                      25.0
       Maximum surface temperature: 445.5 °C
                    OEM Configuration, Engine 251
               100% Load - Wide Open Throttle - Mode 1
                                                •rEOO.0'
                                                                                      •500


                                                                                      •4W;
                                                                                       !.,.. .:•

                                                                                      •300'


                                                                                      •200 ;
                                                •25.0K :
                  Maximum surface temperature: 599.3 °C

                          50% Load -Mode 3
                  Maximum surface temperature: 538.9 °C

                          10% Load - Mode 5
                                                 25.0
                  Maximum surface temperature: 449.7 °C
Figure 6-20:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine
251 at low hours, equipped with catalyst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler (right). Both configurations used the
OEM carburetor.
                                                79

-------
   OEM Carburetor w-catalyst, Engine 251
                                    t-250
    Maximum surface temperature: 520.4 °C

                                    7600.0
    Maximum surface temperature: 521.1 °C
                                     250 •
    Maximum surface temperature: 489.4 °C
                                              0-seeonds
                                              30-seconds
                                               1-minute
   OEM Configuration, Engine 251

                                -600.0

                                 500:

                                 400

                                 ir*<

                                -zoo

                                -100-.:

                                •^25.0; ..
Maximum surface temperature: 534.1 °C

                             !»-600.0
                                 250
Maximum surface temperature: 484.9 °C

                                -600.0
Maximum surface temperature: 430.0 °C
Figure 6-21: Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine
251 during a hot-soak period immediately after engine shutdown from sustained operation at 50% load (A-cycle
mode 3).
                                                 80

-------
   OEM Carburetor w-catalyst, Engine 251
                                      25.0
    Maximum surface temperature:  415.7 °C

                                     r600.0;:
                                      25.0
    Maximum surface temperature: 358.7 °C
                                     •25,0-
    Maximum surface temperature: 316.6 °C
                                               2-minutes
                                               3-minwes
                                               4-minutes
   OEM Configuration, Engine 251

                                -600.0

                                 500 ..

                                 400 ;;•

                                 *0

                                 -200;

                                 -100
                                 -25.0
Maximum surface temperature:  356.2 °C

                                 -BCOUO:::

                                 j-500  '

                                 r
-------
   OEM Carburetor w-catalyst, Engine 251
                                     25,0''.
    Maximum surface temperature: 286.3 °C

                                    r-600.0
                                     25.0
    Maximum surface temperature: 258.2 °C

                                    r6DO.D
                                     100:
                                     25,0
     Maximum surface temperature: 234.5CC
                                               5-minutes
                                               6-minutes
                                               7-minutes
   OEM Configuration, Engine 251
Maximum surface temperature: 249.4 °C
                                -600.0 .
                                 JOO.
                                 25.0
Maximum surface temperature: 223.0 °C
                                 25.0
Maximum surface temperature: 201.8°C
Figure 6-23: Continuation of the hot-soak shown in figures 6-21 and 6-22.
                                                  82

-------
      OEM Carburetor w-catalyst, Engine 254
    100% Load - Wide Open Throttle - Mode 1
                                     •^700.0
                                      600

                                      500  ;

                                      400 :
                                       ,-•  *C'

                                      300:

                                      •200' v

                                      -100
 Maximum surface temperature:  651 °C
Maximum head-pipe temperature: 420 °C

         50% Load - Mode 3
                                      •25.0
       Maximum surface temperature: 612 °C
      Maximum head-pipe temperature: 483 °C
               10% Load - Mode 5
                                     -700.0

                                      GOO

                                     -500..:


                                     -40°J<<

                                     -300 i

                                      200 :

                                      100

                                     -25.0
        Maximum surface temperature: 587 °C
      Maximum head-pipe temperature: 561
                                                    OEM Configuration, Engine 254
                                               100% Load - Wide Open Throttle - Mode 1
                                                        Maximum surface temperature: 651 °C
                                                       Maximum head-pipe temperature:  586 °C

                                                               50% Load-Mode 3
                                                  Maximum surface temperature: 610 °C
                                                 Maximum head-pipe temperature: 610 °C

                                                         10% Load-Mode 5
                                                                                -700.0

                                                                                -600

                                                                                 500

                                                                                 400 V

                                                                                 300

                                                                                -200

                                                                                -100

                                                                                 25.0
                                                  Maximum surface temperature: 577 °C
                                                 Maximum head-pipe temperature:
Figure 6-24:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system componer
254 at low hours, equipped with catalyst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler (right). Both configurat
OEM carburetor.
re: 561 °C             Maximum head-pipe temperature: 577 °C
showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine
yst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler (right). Both configurations used the
                                                83

-------
   OEM Carburetor w-catalyst, Engine 254
                                    -700.0.:
       Maximum surface temperature: 649 C
       Maximum surface temperature: 648 °C
       Maximum surface temperature: 584 °C
                                               0-seconds
                                               30-seconds
                                                1-minute
OEM Configuration, Engine 254
Maximum surface temperature: 636 "C
Maximum surface temperature: 636 C
Maximum surface temperature: 585 °C
6-25:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine 254
during a hot-soak period immediately after engine shutdown from sustained operation at 100% load, WOT (A-cycle
mode 1).
                                                  84

-------
   OEM Carburetor w-
jne 254

   700,0
       Maximum surface temperature: 494 °C
                                      -100

                                      -25.0 ,:

       Maximum surface temperature: 437 °C
                                    »-700.0 '



                                       600   •



                                      -500


                                      -400
                                           *C


                                      -300



                                      •200-
                                       100


                                       •25.0,.
       Maximum surface temperature: 384 °C
                                                 2-minutes
                                                 3-minutes
             4-minutes
OEM Configuration, Engine 254
                              Maximum surface temperature: 446 °C


                                                             -700.0 ,;


                                                             -m'


                                                              .500;  ";





                                                             -300





                                                             -100
                                                             C-25.0
                              Maximum surface temperature: 356 °C
                              Maximum surface temperature: 298 °C
6-26: Continuation of the hot-soak shown in figure 6-25.
                                                    85

-------
   OEM Carburetor w-catalvst. Engine 254
       Maximum surface temperature: 340 °C
       Maximum surface temperature: 292 °C
                                       25,0 ;v.
       Maximum surface temperature: 260 °C
                                                 5-minutes
                                                 6-minutes
                                                 7-minutes
OEM Configuration, Engine 254
Maximum surface temperature; 251 °C
Maximum surface temperature: 215 °C
Maximum surface temperature: 187 °C
                               -100
                               •25.0
6-27: Continuation of the hot-soak shown in figures 6-25 and 6-26.
                                                    86

-------
   OEM Carburetor w-catalyst, Engine 254
                                      -700.0
                                       100
                                       25.0  '.,
       Maximum surface temperature: 620 °C

                                     t-7oao
500

..log

•300;.

;200*
                                      •25.0
       Maximum surface temperature: 520 °C
       Maximum surface temperature: 479 °C
                                                 0-seconds
                                                30-seconds
                                                 1-minute
                           OEM Configuration, Engine 254
                                                           100 !::,r
                                                         ^25.o:;;:: •
                           Maximum surface temperature: 600 °C
                            Maximum surface temperature: 592 °C

                                                          -Mo

                                                          -SMt':

                                                          :500 ',



                                                          -300  ,

                                                          •200

                                                          -:ioo:;;

                                                          -25.0
                            Maximum surface temperature: 493 °C
6-28:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for engine 254
during a hot-soak period immediately after engine shutdown from sustained operation at 50% load (A-cycle mode
3).
                                                    87

-------
    OEM Carburetor w-catalyst, Engine 254
                                     r^ 700,0; .
                                      600


                                      500


                                      40fl.;


                                      303 '


                                      200


                                      -100

                                      -25.6
        Maximum surface temperature: 424 °C
        Maximum surface temperature: 375 °C


                                     r-700.0
        Maximum surface temperature: 334 °C
                                      -EDO


                                      500

                                      400  .


                                      -300


                                      -200


                                      100

                                     ^25.0
        Maximum surface temperature: 298 °C
2-minutes
                                                   3-minutes
                                                   4-minutes
5-minutes
                  OEM Configuration, Engine 254
                                                700.0r
-600


-.500'.




••**>

-200


 100
                  Maximum surface temperature: 375 °C
                                                                                                   - 703.0


                                                                                                   •600 1.':'


                                                                                                   -500;! '
                  Maximum surface temperature: 302 °C
                  Maximum surface temperature: 254 °C
                  Maximum surface temperature: 215 °C
6-29: Continuation of the hot-soak shown in figure 6-28.

-------
Muffler outlet temperatures - Class I and Class II Engines
Exhaust gas outlet temperatures measured for each of the 6-modes of the A-cycle tests are shown in
Figure 6-30 for representative examples of Class I side-valve, Class I OHV, and Class II OHV engine for
both OEM muffler and catalyst-muffler configurations. The exhaust outlet temperatures for the Class I
catalyst-mufflers were comparable or cooler in comparison with the Class I OEM mufflers.  The Class II
catalyst-muffler exhaust outlet temperatures were 30-40 °C higher than the OEM muffler. When mounted
in the lawn tractor chassis, all of  the Class II engines tested in*the field were equipped with exhaust
ejectors that significantly lowered the exhaust gas temperatures at the outlet via mixing with ambient air.
                                                             -*-T Exh Out, 258 w/OEM Muffler
                                                             -•-T Exh Out, 258 w/Catalyst
                                                             -*- T Exh Out, 244 w/OEM Muffler
                                                                    Exh Out, 244 w/Catalyst
                                                                -T Exh Out, 251 w/OEM Muffler
                                                                    Exh Out, 251 w/Catalyst
                                               3456
                                                 A-Cycle Mode #
Figure 6-30: Exhaust gas outlet temperatures measured during engine dynamometer testing over the 6 steady-state
modes of the A-cycle test for representative Class I side-valve (258) and OHV (244) engines and  for a Class II
engine (251). Note that the dashed lines are for OEM muffler configurations, and the solid lines are for catalyst-
muffler configurations.
Run-on after-fire testing

A digital image from one of the tests is presented in Figure 6-31. A full comparison of the OEM muffler and the
catalyst-muffler configurations tested under the same test conditions will require viewing of digital video acquired
during testing.  Digital video files may be accessed for viewing via the Phase 3 Nonroad SI Engine Docket and also
from the DVD attached to this study.1 The test conditions are described in Chapter 5.

After-fire was evident for engine 241 for each of the four tests of the high-inertia shut-down conditions tested with
the OEM muffler.  This can be seen quite dramatically in digital videos. In many cases, a flash of flame exited the
tailpipe during after-fire (Figure 6-31).  In all cases,  a series of a sharp "bangs" in the audio track of the videos are
evident, sounding similar to a fire-cracker. The force of the after-fire can be seen in the resulting recoil of the
exhaust  collection cone mounted downstream of the tailpipe. It should be noted that the collection cone was
mounted to an approximately 25-lb base located approximately 3 feet below the collection cone.

The tests were repeated four times with the catalyst-muffler, but after-fire was not evident for the four repeats of the
high-inertia shut-down  conditions.  While the catalyst muffler was adapted  from an OEM design, the two-stage
inner baffling differed somewhat in its physical layout (a 3/4" diameter perforated tube followed by a perforated
plate, with 0.125" perforations)  and surface area to prevent flame propagation.  A degree of flow restriction was
also added near the muffler exit through the use of a serviceable OEM spark arresting screen.
                                                 89

-------
Figure 6-31: Digital image taken of engine 241 during after-fire testing with OEM muffler. A 6" or longer after-
fire flame was observed extending from the tailpipe into the exhaust collection cone, accompanied by a sharp
"bang" similar to a firecracker. Repeated testing of engine 241 under the same conditions with a catalyst-muffler
did not result in after-fire.

Ignition misfire testing

Audible engine misfire, increased engine vibration, and erratic torque output were observed while operating engine
255 at the 25% misfire condition. The misfire condition is clearly visible within the torque, speed, and HC data (see
Figures 6-32 and 6-33) and in digital video taken of engine operation  during misfire.  Digital video files showing
engine operation during operation  at the 25% misfire condition may be accessed for viewing within the Phase 3
Nonroad SI Docket and from the DVD attached to this study1.

Infrared thermal  images comparing the tested  catalyst-muffler and OEM muffler configurations are presented in
Figures 6-34 and 6-35.  The peak  temperatures of the  catalyst-muffler were approximately 60 °C cooler than  the
OEM muffler prior to the onset of  ignition misfire.  After 30 seconds of operation at 25% random ignition misfire,
the OEM muffler peak temperatures were unchanged and the catalyst-muffler peak temperatures had increased to
approximately the same temperature as the OEM muffler. As misfire  progressed, the OEM muffler began to cool
and the  catalyst muffler temperatures  continued to increase.  Temperatures for both configurations stabilized
between three and five minutes of operation. After five minutes of misfire, the catalyst-muffler had approximately
130 °C higher peak surface temperatures  than the  OEM muffler  at the same condition (see  Figure 6-34).  The
stabilized temperatures of the catalyst-muffler undergoing 25%  random misfire were comparable to the OEM
muffler operating normally at a 50%  load condition (Figure  6-8).  The  temperature increase was  due  to  the
exothermic reaction of partially burned fuel components over the catalyst substrate. The catalyst-muffler used with
engine 255 included a number of design elements to limit the exothermic reaction during misfire.  These included
dividing the catalyst volume upstream and downstream of the secondary, reducing the amount of secondary air, and
choosing a formulation for the upstream  pre-catalyst that favored  net-rich HC reactions appeared.  The  design
appeared to be moderately successful at limiting the exotherm since peak temperatures stabilized to less than 400 °C
after approximately three minutes of misfire.

Additional testing was conducted to determine if air-shrouding similar to that used with engines 243 and 244 would
be effective at reducing the peak temperatures of exposed surfaces to temperatures below the corresponding peak
temperatures obtained with the OEM muffler configuration (see Figure 6-35).  With the shroud  in place, peak
temperatures during misfire testing were reduced substantially, and  remained at least 50 °C cooler than the OEM
                                                  90

-------
configuration.   Peak temperatures of the shrouded catalyst muffler  were relatively constant throughout the five
minutes of misfire.  The surface temperature of the shroud adjacent  to location of the catalyst within the exhaust
system and the surface temperature of the exhaust ejector outlet increased from approximately 100 °C prior to the
onset of misfire to stabilized temperatures of approximately 180 °C after five minutes of ignition misfire.
   320
   300
   280
-260

& 220
X 200
•f 180
£ 160
   140
   120
I 10°
    80
    60
    40
    20
 D)
Ul
                         — Engine Speed (rpm)
                         — HC (ppmC)
                         — Muffler Inlet T(°C)
                         —-Torque (Ib-ft)	
                              25%
        i
                                                  *y?m^^
                                            789
                                             Time (Minutes)
                                                              10
                                                                    11
                                                                          12
                                                                                 13
                                                                                         TSO
•  45
                                                                                           40
                                                                                           35
  30
  25
|
  20 -
     -S
  15 Q
                                                                                          • 10
                                                                                           s
                                                                                       14
Figure 6-32: Operational data with engine 255 and OEM muffler showing initial temperature stabilization followed
by approximately five minutes of operation with 25% random ignition misfire.  Note that HC concentrations are
from dilute-CVS measurements.
                                                      ^T^ii^^
                          — Engine     Spe|e
-------
       Engine 255 with Catalyst-Muffler
           & Venturi Secondary Air
                                    1-600.0
                                      400


                                     -300


                                     -200


                                     -100
                                      25.0 .
       Maximum surface temperature:  256 °C
                                      100  '
                                      250
       Maximum surface temperature:  318 °C
                                      100
                                      250
       Maximum surface temperature:  382 °C
0-seconds
                                               30-seconds
                                                5-minutes
                  Engine 255 with OEM Muffler
                                                                                              25.0
                Maximum surface temperature: 321 °C
                Maximum surface temperature: 322 °C
                                                                                               100,
                                                                                              25.0
                Maximum surface temperature: 251 "C
Figure 6-34:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for OHV
engine 255 at low hours equipped with a catalyst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler (right). The images were taken
immediately before (top)  and after 30  seconds (middle) and five minutes (bottom) of continuous operation at a
condition of 25% random misfire and the minimum torque measured for the lawn mower blade for this application
at 2900 rpm (approximately 25% load or A-cycle mode 4).
                                                  92

-------
      Engine 255 with Catalyst-Muffler
          & Venturi Secondary Air
       Maximum surface temperature: 204 °C
                              .500


                               400


                               300  :


                               200


                               100


Maximum surface temperature:  185°C

                              r600.0
                                         •C
                                      100
                                      250
       Maximum surface temperature:  197°C
                                               0-seconds
                                               30-seconds
                                               5-minutes
 Engine 255 with OEM Muffler
                                                                                              '),
                                                                                             •200
                            ••250;
Maximum surface temperature: 321 °C
                                                                                              25.0
                                                               Maximum surface temperature: 322 °C
                               SCO.O


                              -500


                              -400


                               300


                              -200
                                                                                                  •c
                                                                                              25.0
Maximum surface temperature: 251 "C
Figure 6-35:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for OHV
engine 255 at low hours equipped with a catalyst-muffler and air shroud (left) and an OEM muffler (right).  The
images were taken immediately before (top) and after 30 seconds (middle) and five minutes (bottom) of continuous
operation at a condition of 25% random misfire and the minimum torque measured for the lawn mower blade for
this application at 2900 rpm (approximately 25% load or A-cycle mode 4).
                                                  93

-------
Rich Operation

The 1.0 to 1.5 change in air-to-fuel ratio was achievable for A-cycle modes 1-4 via changes to the main carburetor
jet. During mode 5, the main jet change resulted in a change of 0.7 air-to-fuel ratio, and no change for mode 6.
Figure 6-36 shows a comparison between the air-to-fuel ratio achieved with the OEM carburetor main jet and the
modified carburetor  on engine  255.   Engine-out CO emissions increased in modes  1  to 4 of the A-cycle by
approximately 40 to  50%.  Engine-out HC emission were approximately doubled.  Power at WOT increased by
approximately 6%.

Thermal imaging results for operation over modes  1, 3 and 5 of the A-cycle are shown in 6-36.  Peak surface
temperatures were comparable between the catalyst-muffler and OEM configurations over all six modes of the A:
cycle.  Surface temperatures for the catalyst muffler were virtually  unchanged relative to the tests  conducted with
the OEM carburetor jetting. Although higher concentrations of CO and HC reactants were available in the exhaust,
the richer operation  also limited the amount of oxygen available  in the exhaust, which limited  the exothermic
oxidation reactions of the  CO and HC over the catalyst.  The richer carburetor jetting reduced the peak surface
temperatures of the OEM muffler by approximately 30 to 40 °C, or to approximately the same peak  temperatures as
those of the catalyst-muffler.
                                                    OEM Carburetor

                                                    Main jet modified for rich operation
                                                 A-Cycle Mode #

Figure 6-36: A comparison of air-to-fuel ratio for the first five modes of the A-cycle test.
                                                   94

-------
         Engine 255 with Catalyst-Muffler
             & Venturi Secondary Air
            100% Load - Wide Open Throttle
                                      ,-600.0
                                        500
                                        400
                                        2001

                                        100
                                        25.0
       Maximum surface temperature:  433 °C

                50% Load - Mode 3
                                        100
       	25.0
        Maximum surface temperature:  317 "C

                 10% Load-Mode 5
        Maximum surface temperature:  244 °C
   Engine 255 with OEM Muffler
    100% Load - Wide Onen Throttle
                                 25,0
Maximum surface temperature: 450 °C

            i Load - Mode 3	
                                -600.0

                                -500

                                 400

                                 300 •'

                                •200

                                -.100
                                 25.0
Maximum surface temperature: 320 °C

         10% Load -Mode 5
                                 100

                                -25.0
Maximum surface temperature:  246 °C
Figure 6-37:  Infrared thermal images showing the surface temperatures of exhaust system components for OHV
engine 255 at low hours equipped with a catalyst-muffler (left) and an OEM muffler (right) for modes 1, 3 and 5 of
the A-cycle with the carburetor main-jet modified to provide 1-1.5 richer air-to-fuel ratio than the OEM jetting.
                                                 95

-------
  C.      FIELD TESTING RESULTS
                                      t
  During the course of field testing, over 1200 individual refueling events were carried out on six walk-behind lawn
  mowers and four lawn tractors without incident.  Of these, four of the lawn mowers and two of the lawn trac^
  were equipped with catalyst-mufflers and accounted for over 700 of the refueling events. Auxiliary fuel cans were

       n                                                                         IeSS *»" ^ minutes after
  During field operations in Tennessee, four of the lawn mowers (all with the same engine type) had unacceptable
  evels of debris accumulate m the area of the engine cooling shroud immediately above the cylinder head and on
  top of the engine cylinder and required frequent maintenance. The issue was related to the design of the cooling fan
  and the fan a,r-intake and caused maintenance issues with both the OEM and catalyst-equipped configurations of
  this engine family. The other two engines from a different engine family that were used during field testing (244
  245) did not have any appreciable debris accumulation within the OEM engine shroud. These two engines used a
  small perforated screen attached to the top of the cooling fan to prevent debris above a certain size from entering the
  coolmg fan and engine shroud. Engines 244 and 245 also used a cooling fan with significantly higher flow (30
  curved fan vanes versus six flat-paddle type vanes). Engines 246, 248, and 249 were retrofitted with screens near
  the inlet to the cooling fan and no further debris accumulation problems were encountered (see Figure 6-38)
                              Excessive
                                debris
                            accumulation
                                     Engine 245
                                     cooling fan
                                    w/perforated
                                      disc inlet
                                       screen
Figure 6-38:  Engines 246, 248, 249 and 259 had problems with excessive debris build-up underneath the engine
cooling shroud (top, engine 259 shown).  Engine 245 had negligible debris build-up on engine and catalyst-muffler
surfaces  even after  110 hours of field operation (bottom left).  Note the perforated disc attached to the ton of the
coolmg fan that prevented debris ingestion with engine 245. An external  screen was added near engine fan's air-
intake on engmes 246, 248 and 249 to eliminate ingestion of large debris by the engine cooling fan (bottom right)
                                                  96

-------
During hundreds of hours of grass cutting operations there was no discernable difference in operation attributable to
the use of catalyst-mufflers with the lawn mowers or the lawn tractors.  AH of the lawn mowers were operated to
approximately 100 to 110 hours (within 15-25 hours of the end of useful life).  The lawn tractors were operated to
approximately 240 hours (within 10 hours of the end of useful life for engines 231 and 252 and to within 10 hours
of mid-life for engines 232 and 233).

Surface Temperature Measurements bv Infrared Thermal Imaging Taken During Grass Cutting Operations

Full motion video infrared thermal images were used to allow surface temperature measurement with the equipment
under load during grass cutting operations. Observations drawn from the videos will be presented in this section. A
full comparison of IR video images from the OEM muffler and the catalyst-muffler configurations tested during
field operations will  require viewing of digital video data acquired during testing.  Digital video files may be
accessed for viewing via the Phase 3 Nonroad SI Engine Docket and also via the DVD attached to this study.1  The
1R thermal images were acquired at ambient conditions of 18.5 °C (65  °F), 80% relative humidity and little to no
wind for the testing in Tenneessee.  The IR thermal images were acquired at ambient conditions of 30 °C (86 °F),
46% relative humidity with light 5 to 10 mph winds. The impact of the wind was not readily apparent in the surface
temperature  measurements from the equipment, but effect of wind can clearly be seen on the turf surfaces for the IR
video images taken during idling. The grass cutting conditions can be seen in Figures 5-14 and 5-15.

Class I Lawn Mowers

The lawn mower  equipped  with  engine 259 and  an OEM muffler  was operating with surface temperatures
exceeding 360 °C during cutting of moderate to heavy grass. The lawn mowers equipped with engines 244 and 245
and catalyst-mufflers  were operating with surface temperatures of approximately  120 °C  and 150 °C, respectively,
during grass cutting in approximately the same location. The lawn mowers equipped with engines 246 and 248 and
catalyst mufflers operated with surface temperatures of approximately 280 °C.  The lawn mower equipped with
engine 249 and a catalyst-muffler operated with surface temperatures of approximately  130 °C.   In all cases, the
surface temperatures of the lawn mowers equipped with catalyst-muffler configurations were significantly less than
the lawn mower equipped with engine  259 and the OEM muffler.  The sub-200 °C temperatures achieved with
engines 244, 245, and 249 are due to the use of air shrouding and forced-air cooling around the muffler and due to
the use of ejector cooling of  the exhaust gases and the outer surface of the air shroud.  The lower surface
temperatures of the catalyst-mufflers used with engine 244 and 249 relative to that used with engine 245 may have
been due  to the reduced use of platinum  within their catalyst washcoating formulations.  Engine  249 used a
rhodium-only formulation  and  engine 244 used a formulation  that was  predominantly palladium with a small
amount of platinum and rhodium.  The best combination of emissions control and lower surface temperatures for
these applications appeared to be achievable using a trimetallic washcoating formulation of approximately 30 g/ft3 -
40  g/ft3 PGM that were predominantly palladium with smaller, roughly equivalent amounts  of platinum  and
rhodium. The rhodium-only catalyst was also comparably effective at achieving low surface temperatures and  was
capable of similar emission control performance to the palladium-rich trimetallic formulations  at much  lower
loading levels (i.e., only slightly higher total PGM cost).  The rhodium-only catalyst was also the only catalyst in
this testing capable of reaching EPA's HC+NOx emission targets without the use of passive secondary air. The  lack
of secondary air and reduced CO oxidation for engine 249 may have also contributed to its relatively  low surface
temperatures during grass cutting.

Class II Lawn Tractors - 3.5 g/kW-hr systems

The lawn tractor equipped with engine 252, which was an OEM muffler and induction system configuration, had
exposed surface temperatures of approximately 150 °C as viewed from  both sides of the tractor when cutting
moderate to heavy grass.  Note that the view of the exhaust outlet of the muffler was obscured by the  OEM touch
guard over the exhaust system.  The lawn tractor equipped with engine 231, which had the EF1 system and catalyst-
muffler, had exposed  surface temperatures of approximately 110 °C. Note that the exhaust outlet housed within the
exhaust ejector was in clear view of the IR Equipment. This temperature  was not recorded as an external surface
temperature.
                                                   97

-------
The lawn tractor equipped with engine 233, which was an OEM muffler and induction system configuration, had
exposed surface temperatures of approximately 220 °C to 280 °C.  The lawn tractor equipped with engine 232,
which had the EFI system and catalyst-muffler, had exposed surface temperatures of approximately 200 °C.

In the case of both engine families, exposed surfaces were cooler for the catalyst-muffler equipped engines. This
differed somewhat from the laboratory results, in part due to the more effective cooling of the catalyst-mufflers as
installed in the chassis due to the re-routing of cooling air through the chassis and the addition of the exhaust
ejectors.

Class II Lawn Tractors - 8.0 g/kW-hr systems

The lawn  tractor equipped with engine 251,  which used an OEM muffler,  had exposed surface temperatures of
approximately 200 °C as viewed from both sides of the tractor when cutting moderate to heavy grass, with peaks as
high as 300 to 365 °C. The lawn tractor equipped with engine 253, which had the catalyst-muffler, had exposed
surface temperatures of approximately 115 to 130 °C, with peaks of 160 to 190 °C.

The lawn  tractor equipped with engine 256,  which used an OEM muffler,  had exposed surface temperatures of
approximately 180 °C to 230 °C with peak temperatures of 290 to 320 °C. The lawn tractor equipped with engine
254, which had the catalyst-muffler, also had exposed surface temperatures of approximately 180 to 230 °C and
peak temperatures of 290 to 320 °C.

In the case of both engine families, exposed surfaces were ether comparable (engine 254) or cooler (engine 253) for
the catalyst-muffler equipped engines. This differed somewhat from  the laboratory results, in part due to the more
effective cooling of the catalyst-mufflers as installed in the chassis due to the re-routing of cooling air through the
chassis and the addition of the exhaust ejectors.

Results of Hot-Soak Tests Conducted in the  Field

Results of the hot soak tests conducted after approximately 30 to 45 minutes of grass cutting are presented in
Figures 6-39 and 6-40 for the lawn mowers and lawn tractors, respectively, for data taken in Tennessee in the fall of
2005 and in Figures 6-41 and 6-42, respectively, for data taken in Florida in early 2006.

Tennessee Tests

At the two minute nominal refueling point following engine shut-down, two of the lawn mowers equipped with
catalyst mufflers (engines 246 and 248) had comparable surface peak surface temperatures to the lawn mower
equipped with the OEM muffler (engine 259). Two of the catalyst-muffler equipped lawn mowers (engines 244 and
249) were significantly cooler than the lawn  mower equipped with the  OEM muffler.  The temperature decrease
with time was more pronounced with the OEM configuration (259). Temperatures for all tested configurations were
comparable at approximately five to six minutes following engine shut-down.  Trends in soak temperatures relative
to muffler shrouding and catalyst precious metal composition were similar to those observed during grass cutting.
Catalyst washcoating formulations with higher palladium or rhodium content in place of platinum higher content
tended to start the soak period with lower temperatures. Catalyst-mufflers using air shrouds and exhaust ejectors
also tended to start the soak period with lower temperatures.

Florida Tests

At the two minute nominal refueling  point  following engine shut-down, all of the catalyst-muffler equipped lawn
mower and lawn tractor configurations had lower peak surface temperatures than the OEM muffler configurations.
                                                   98

-------
                                                                               244 w/catatvst
                                                                           — 245w/catalvst
                                                                               246 w/catalvst
                                                                               248 w/catalvst
                                                                           — 249 w/catalvst
                                                                           — 259 OEM muffler
1:00     2:00
3:00
                                           4:00     5:00     6:00
                                               Time (min.:sec.)
7:00     8:00     9:00   10:00
Figure 6-39:  A comparison of peak surface temperatures for six lawn mowers measured using infrared thermal
imaging during hot-soak tests immediately following engine shut-down after approximately 30 minutes of grass-
cutting.  M the nominal two  minute refueling point, peak temperatures  of the catalyst-muffler equipped  lawn
mowers were either comparable to (246, 248) or below (245, 244, 249) the lawn mower equipped with an OEM
muffler (259).  This data was acquired in SW Tennessee.


Both of the lawn tractors equipped with EFI and catalyst-mufflers (engines 231 and 232) were cooler than the OEM
lawn tractors (engines 233  and 252) at the nominal two minute refueling  point after engine shut-down.  Surface
temperatures for both EFI and catalyst-muffler configurations were at or below 100 °C for the entire soak period
following engine shut-down. Surface temperatures for the lawn tractor equipped with engine 231 decreased slower
than the lawn tractors equipped with engines 232, 233 and 252. Surface temperatures were comparable for the
configurations with engines 232, 233 and 252 at approximately five to six minutes following engine shut-down.

Engine 231 had higher cylinder head and oil temperatures than engines 232 and 233 (but less than engine 252) and
231 also had somewhat less cooling capacity from the engine fan than engines 232 and 233. It is possible that the
higher chassis and engine temperatures of lawn tractor equipped with engine 231 combined with the increased mass
of the catalyst-muffler reduced the rate of heat transfer from the exhaust system following shut-down.
                                                 99

-------
                                                               231 w/EFI&Catalyst
                                                               232w/EF)&Catalyst

                                                               233 OEM Configuration
                                                               252 OEM Configuration
         0:00
1:00     2:00    3:00
4:00     5:00    6:00
    Time (min.:secl
7:00     8:00    9:00   10:00
Figure 6-40: A comparison of peak surface temperatures for four lawn tractors measured using infrared thermal
imaging during hot-soak tests immediately following engine shut-down after approximately 30-minutes of grass-
cutting.  At the nominal 2-minute refueling point, peak surface temperatures for the lawn tractors equipped with EF1
and catalyst mufflers were comparable to (231) or significantly cooler than (232) the OEM configurations (233,
252).  Note that engines 232 and 233 are both from one engine family, and that engines 231 and 251 are both from
another engine family (refer to table 5-2). This data was acquired in SW Tennessee.
                                                 100

-------
       340

       320
       300
                                                                                w/uataiyst
                                                                            245 w/OEM Muffler
          0:00    •  1:00      2:00       3:00       4:00       5:00

                                               Time (min.-.sec.)
6:00
7:00
8:00
Figure 6-41:  A comparison of peak surface temperatures for two lawn mowers measured using infrared thermal
imaging during hot-soak tests immediately following engine shut-down after approximately 30 minutes of grass-
cutting. This was a repeat of hot-soak testing for engines 244 and 245 at a higher ambient temperature (30  °C vs.
18.5 °C),  and with engine 245 using an OEM muffler.   At the nominal two minute refueling point, peak
temperatures of the catalyst-muffler equipped lawn mower (engine 244) was below that the lawn mower equipped
with an OEM muffler (engine 245).  The range of surface temperatures encountered were approximately  60 °C
higher than those measured at lower ambient temperature conditions (Figure 6-39).  This data  was acquired in
Florida.
                                                 101

-------
      400
                                                                  253 w/Catalyst
                                                                  251 w/OEM Muffler
                                                                  254 w/Catalyst
                                                                  256 w/OEM Muffler
         0:00       1:00      2:00       3:00       4:00      5:00
                                               Time (min.:sec.)
6:00
7:00
                                                                                             8:00
Figure 6-42:  A comparison of peak surface temperatures for four lawn tractors measured using infrared thermal
imaging during hot-soak tests immediately following engine shut-down after approximately 30-minutes of grass-
cutting.  At the nominal 2-minute refueling point, peak surface temperatures for the lawn tractors equipped with
catalyst mufflers (engines 251 and 256) were significantly cooler than the OEM muffler configurations (engines 251
and 256).  Note that engines 251 and 253 are both from one engine family, and that engines 254 and 256 are both
from another engine family (refer to table 5-2). This data was acquired in Florida. -
                                                  102

-------
 Idle Testing

The turf surface temperatures for the catalyst-muffler equipped lawn tractors were either comparable (engine 254)
or reduced (engine 253) relative to the turf surface temperatures measured during idling of the lawn tractors with the
OEM mufflers (engines 251 and 256).  The variation in turf temperatures was due entirely to wind gusts.  Wind
breaks were improvised on two  sides of the  lawn tractors, but light wind gusts were observed to cause an
approximately  10 °C to 20 °C oscillation in peak turf temperatures measured for engines 254 and 256.  Wind was
relatively calm during the measurements with  engines 251 and 253, which reduced the variability in peak turf
temperatures to approximately 5 °C to 10 °C. Note that engines 251 and 253 are both from one engine family, and
that engines 254 and 256 are both from another engine family (refer to table  5-2).  This data was acquired in
Florida.
       120
       100
    I   4°
    a.


        20
— 253 w/Catalyst
— 251 w/OEM Muffler
— 254 w/Catalyst
— 256 w/OEM Muffler
          0:00
    0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00
2:30
                                                   Time (s)
Figure 6-43:  A comparison of peak turf surfaces  measured underneath and immediately in  front of four lawn
tractors parked and operating at high-idle.  Measurements were taken following a 5-minute turf temperature
stabilization period.  The turf surface  temperatures for the catalyst-muffler equipped lawn tractors were either
comparable (engine 254) or reduced (engine 253) relative to the turf surface temperatures measured during idling of
the lawn tractors with the OEM mufflers (engines 251 and 256).
1 "Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines, Vessels, and Equipment Document", Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0328, "Safety Study Supplemental Data".
                                                 103

-------
7.      Design and  Process  Failure  Mode  and Effects Analyses  (FMEA)
        to Assess NHH Incremental Safety Risk

A.      BACKGROUND

In addition to the  laboratory  and field work described in previous chapters, EPA contracted with Southwest
Research Institute of San Antonio, Texas to conduct design and process Failure Mode and Effects Analyses. The
full text of the SwRI report is contained in an Appendix to this study.

An  FMEA  is an engineering analysis tool to help engineers and other professional staff on the FMEA team to
identify and manage risk.  In an FMEA, potential failure modes, causes of failure, and failure effects are identified.
The primary purpose of the FMEA is to identify those causes of failure modes with the greatest potential for adverse
effect both in terms of frequency of occurrence of the cause of the failure and in the severity of the consequences of
the  failure.  Within an FMEA the multiplicative product of the numerical values assigned to the frequency of
occurrence of the causal mechanism and severity of the effect of the failure is referred to as risk probability. This
risk probability is used by the  FMEA team to rank problems for potential action to reduce or eliminate the causal
factors. The focus of the FMEA is on identifying and prioritizing the causal factors for the failure modes, because
the  causal factors are the elements that a manufacturer can consider in order to reduce the adverse effects that might
result from a failure mode. While data is employed to the greatest degree possible, ultimately the process depends
on the professional judgment by members of the FMEA team.

Risk and risk probability are not the same. In traditional safety  analysis, risk usually refers to the likelihood of the
occurrence of a hazardous  outcome.  The occurrence of a hazardous outcome in a given event is much less than the
occurrence of the event itself (e.g., most trip and fall events do not lead to broken bones). In this context, the risk
probability  is not the risk  that an actual hazardous outcome will  occur in a given event, but is a tool to rank the
relative risk of events based on the frequency of the causal factor leading to a failure mode and the severity of the
potential  effect of the failure.  The frequency used to determine risk probability is the estimate  of the frequency of
the  potential cause of the failure mode not the frequency of the potential effect(s) if the failure mode were to occur.
For example, one failure  mode that was evaluated  is backfiring from the  engine. One factor that could cause
backfire would be a richer fuel mixture. 'A richer mixture does not always lead to backfire, if it did then there is
always an increased risk of fire or burn. The FMEA analysis  looks at the probability that the causal factor, (the
richer fuel mixture), would occur, and the severity of the outcome if the richer fuel mixture did lead to backfire and
a fire or burn.  The analysis  does not try to determine the likelihood that richer fuel mixture will in fact lead to fire
or burn, instead, the analyses basically assumes the worst case - the backfire does occur and leads to a fire or burn.
The analysis looks at various failure modes from  this worst case perspective, in order to rank  the highest priority
issues to address. Thus, for FMEA purposes the risk probability  associated with richer fuel mixture may be the same
for  all potential outcomes of a  richer fuel mixture because the probability of the causal factor of richer fuel mixture
occurring is the same. However, the hazardous outcome of a fire or burn occurring is clearly  not the same as the
probability that a richer fuel  mixture will occur. Determining hazard risk is beyond the scope of a design or process
FMEA.,
                                                  104

-------
B.  THE WORK CONDUCTED BY SwRI

In doing this work for EPA, SwRI used the basic FMEA approach contained in SAE Standard  J1739.1  This
approach requires the FMEA team to identify and characterize the systems and subsystems involved and then for
each subsystem list:

        1.   The item/function being analyzed

        2.   The potential cause(s)/mechanism(s) of the failure (both primary and contributing, as appropriate)

        3.   The potential failure mode

        4.   The potential effect(s) of the failure

        5.   The classification of the effect

        6.   The severity of the failure mode

        7.   The frequency of occurrence of the potential cause(s)/mechanism(s)

        8.   Risk Probability Number (RPN) [(6)x(7)]


SAE J1739 provides detailed and helpful guidance to the team on how to set-up and conduct the FMEA. However,
the FMEA is a tool and is often tailored by an FMEA team to help better meet project needs. In this case, looking at
the incremental risk question raised by EPA required SwRI to make adaptations in the way they applied the SAE
protocol. These are described in the full text of the SwRI report attached to this study.

This FMEA covered equipment using  Class I and Class II engines. For  Class I engines, the equipment identified
was a typical walk-behind lawnmower (WBM). For Class II, the equipment identified was a ride-on lawnmower
(ROM). Two different types of FMEAs were  prepared. The first was design FMEAs for both the WBM and ROM.
The second were three process  FMEAs covering refueling, maintenance, and  shutdown and storage of the
equipment.

These FMEAs were conducted to  identify and assess potential differences in risk probability between engines and
equipment meeting EPA  Phase  2 emission  standards and  properly designed  engines and equipment  meeting
potential EPA Phase  3 emission standards. For  Phase 2 Class I and II powered-equipment, SwRI used typical
currently produced  equipment/engines.  Obviously,  production  Phase 3  equipment  is  not available. The
characteristics of properly designed Phase 3 equipment/engine as considered by SwRI are presented in Table 7-1.
                                                 105

-------
Table 7-1 . Projected Phase 3 Engine Characteristics
Item No.
I
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
Class I Lawnmower Engine
Application of catalyst (moderate activity 30-50%)
designed to minimize CO oxidation, maximize
NOX reduction, with low HC oxidation efficiency
at high exhaust-flow-rates and high HC oxidation
efficiency at low-exhaust flowrates. This design is
expected to minimize catalyst exotherm.
Cooling and shrouding of engine and muffler to
minimize surface temperatures. Use of heat
shielding and/or air-gap insulated exhaust
components to minimize surface temperatures.
Design flow patl^affles through the mufflers to
incorporate flame arresting design features, to
improve heat rejection to muffler surfaces and to "
spread heat rejection over a large surface area of
the muffler. This will reduce the incidence of
backfire and reduce localized hot spots.
Different catalyst substrates (ceramic, metal
monolith, hot tube, metal mesh) can be
successfully used.
The use of air ejectors to cool exhaust gases at the
muffler outlet and to improve cooling of heat
shielding.
Use of a small amount of passive supplemental air
to improve exhaust chemistry at light load, but
designed so bulk exhaust remains rich of
stoichiometry at all conditions, and flow-limited at
high exhaust flowrates. This design minimizes
risk of excessive catalyst exotherm.
Use of fuel filter and/or improved design needle
and seat in carburetor to minimize problems
caused by fuel debris.
Improved intake manifold design to reduce intake
manifold leaks.
Cooling system designed to reduce the
accumulation of debris, including the use of a
mesh or screen on cooling fan inlet, when lacking
in current design.
Improved ignition system design to be more
reliable and durable than on Phase 2.
Class II Ride-on Mower Engine
Application of catalyst (moderate activity 30-50%)
designed to minimize CO oxidation, maximize
NOX reduction, with low HC oxidation efficiency
at high exhaust flowrates and high HC oxidation
efficiency at low-exhaust flowrates. This design is
expected to minimize catalyst exotherm.
Cooling and shrouding of engine and muffler to
minimize surface temperatures. Use of heat
shielding and/or air-gap insulated exhaust
components to minimize surface temperatures.
Design flow paths/baffles through the mufflers to
incorporate flame arresting design features, to
improve heat rejection to muffler surfaces and to
spread heat rejection over a large surface area of
the muffler. This will reduce the incidence of
backfire and reduce localized hot spots.
Different catalyst substrates (ceramic, metal
monolith, hot tube, mesh) can be successfully
used.
The use of air ejectors to cool exhaust gases at the
muffler outlet and to improve cooling of heat
shielding.
Use of carburetor recalibration to improve exhaust
chemistry at light load conditions.
Improved air/fuel ratio control through tighter
manufacturing tolerances to minimize variation.
No anticipated design changes.
Cooling system designed to reduce the
accumulation of debris.
Improved ignition system design to be more
reliable and durable than on Phase 2.
106

-------
                       Table 7-1. Projected Phase 3 Engine Characteristics (continued)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Improved component design and manufacturing
processes to reduce air-fuel ratio production
variability to stabilize engine performance and
emissions.
Locate fuel tanks away from heat sources.
Use of carburetors with appropriate idle circuits,
float-bowl vent, and automatic choke or improved
primer bulb. This will improve fuel system
reliability.
Locate the exhaust port away from the
carburetor/fuel line to minimize carburetor
heating.
Improved exhaust system design and materials for
better durability and reliability.
Improved muffler/catalyst/equipment design since
currently, the muffler designs do not incorporate
catalysts.
Evaporative emission controls: hoses, tank, cap,
and evaporative emission control system.
As Needed: non-contact, bi-metal thermal switch
to disable ignition system to shut engine down in
event of excessive temperature.
Component changes are not expected. Improved
manufacturing processes to reduce air-fuel ratio
production variability to stabilize engine
performance and emissions.
Locate fuel tanks away from heat sources.
Use of carburetors with appropriate idle circuits,
float-bowl vent, and automatic choke. This will
improve fuel system reliability.
No anticipated design changes.
No anticipated design changes.
Improved muffler/catalyst/equipment design since
currently, the muffler designs do not incorporate
catalysts.
Evaporative emission controls: hoses, tank, cap,
and evaporative emission control system.
As Needed: non-contact, bi-metal thermal switch
to disable ignition system to shut engine down in
event of excessive temperature. Manufacturers
will need to consider the potential trade-off of
disengaging engine power on ride-on equipment if
were to occur on a slope.
C.  DESIGN FMEA

The design FMEAs looked at the subsystems/components likely to be modified for compliance with potential Phase
3 exhaust  and evaporative emission control  requirements  and those affected by the  modification.  Twelve
systems/subsystems were evaluated for both the WBM (Class I) and the ROM (Class II). This broad approach was
deemed essential because of the technical interdependency among these systems in creating power and the potential
interactions among these systems in failure mode situations. The twelve subsystems evaluated included:

        1.   intake air filter

        2.   carburetor system

        3.   governor

        4.   intake manifold, port, valve, and seals

        5.   block, power head

        6.   exhaust valve and seal

        7.   exhaust manifold, muffler, muffler shroud, and gasket

        8.   supplemental air (venturi)

        9.   catalyst

        10. cooling system
                                                  107

-------
        11. ignition system

        12. fiiel tank and line
The design FMEAs were structured and conducted in the following manner: (The reader may find it useful to refer
to the template in Figure 7-1.)
Figure 7-1: Sample FMEA Tern]

Item



Potential
Cause
(Contributing)



Potential
Cause
(Primary)



Potential
Failure
Modes



Potential
ErTect(s) of
Failure



Classiflcatio
n
of Effect



Sev
Ph
2


plate.

Occur
PH2



RPN
Ph
2



RPN
Ph3



Sev
Ph
3



Occur
Ph3


RPN
Delta
(Ph2
vs. Ph
3)


Notes


First the system and function were identified. Next, for each item identified, each cell of the columns of the FMEA
was completed.  This relied heavily on SwRI's understanding of small engines, combustion, fuels, and how the
primary and contributing causes can translate into potential failure modes. The failure modes of the subsystem were
often identified as a potential cause (primary or contributing) of a potential failure mode of other engine system.

Once the potential failure modes were identified, the team ranked the estimated occurrence rate.  Then the team
identified the potential effects (usually more than one) and ranked their individual severity. Information from the
CPSC  databases discussed  in  Chapter  4 was  instrumental  in linking potential failure  modes  and effects. The
rankings for the severity of the failure mode and the frequency of occurrence of potential cause  were drawn from
the tables (shown below) which were taken from the SwRI report.  For the severity classification any failure mode
involving a potential burn or fire was ranked as a 9 or 10, respectively, while an increase in the risk of fire or burn
was ranked as a 9.  The final steps in the FMEA process were to assign the effect to one of four classes (safety,
regulatory compliance, performance, other) and to calculate the risk probability number for each row by multiplying
the occurrence and severity values. The entire  process was  completed  for each of the twelve subsystems for the
WBM  Phase 2, WBM Phase 3, ROM Phase 2, and ROM Phase 3 equipment. Calculating the delta RPN shown in
the template required a subtraction of the RPN value for the Phase 2 and Phase 3 analysis for each item. The full
results for these four design FMEAs are in the attached SwRI reports.
                                                   108

-------
                                 Table 7-2: Severity Ranking Scale
 Ranking
Effect
                                                      Severity of Effect - Customer
                                                        Hazardous  effect.
                                                        compliant
                                                        Safety Related.  Regulatory non-
                                                        Potential hazardous effect.  Able to stop without mishap.
                                                        Regulatory compliance in jeopardy.
                                                        Item inoperable, but safe. Customer very dissatisfied
                                                        Performance severely affected, but functional and safe.
                                                        Customer dissatisfied
                                                        Performance degraded, but operable and safe.  Customer
                                                        experiences discomfort
                                                        Performance moderately  affected.   Fault on  non-vital
                                                        requires   repair.     Customer   experiences  some
                                                        dissatisfaction
                                                        Minor effect on performance.  Fault does not require
                                                        repair.   Non-vital  fault  always  noticed.    Customer
                                                        experiences minor nuisance.
                                                        Slight effect on performance. Non-vital fault noticed most
                                                        of the time. Customer slightly annoyed.
                                                        Very slight effect on performance.  Non-vital fault may be
                                                        noticed. Customer is not annoyed.
                                                        No effect.
                         Table 7-3: Occurrence Ranking Scale.
                                      Greater than / Equal to 1 in 2
Ranking
                  Probability
                                      Likely Failure Rates
no:

Note 1: For the Design FMEA the Occurrence Ranking is related to the design life of the equipment.
Note 2: For the Process FMEA the Occurrence Ranking is related to a one-year operation period.

D.  PROCESS FMEA

As discussed in Chapter 4, input received from various sources and the CPSC databases revealed three processes
which  to some degree lead to problems in-use.  The process FMEAs conducted by  SwRI addressed refueling,
equipment shut down and storage, and maintenance (equipment cleaning, oil/filter change, spark plug change, blade
sharpening, and drive belt replacement). While some of the information and results from the design FMEA would
carry  across to the process FMEAs (e.g., air filter problems), a key difference between  the analyses of these
activities in  the design and process FMEAs is ,the introduction of the operator as a factor. Otherwise, the process
FMEAs were conducted very much like the design FMEAs, with heavy reliance on the  SwRI technical expertise
and inputs gleaned from the CPSC databases.


E.  FMEA RESULTS

The purpose of the FMEAs was to identify and assess  change in engines, equipment,  and operation that could
potentially impact safety when moving from Phase 2 compliant product to Phase 3 compliant product To meet this
                                                    109

-------
objective there were two further steps necessary to put the FMEA results in a format useful for this study. The first            ™
is related to the "Classification of Effect" column. Above we indicated that the study divided all of the potential
effects into one of four categories; of those four, only safety is relevant here.  Second, as was presented above, the
analysis should be presented in a format that shows incremental RPN differences between Phase 2 and Phase 3
product.  The differences between the outcomes  of the Phase 2 and  Phase 3 design and process FMEAs are
instructive in characterizing potential safety concerns in each category and identifying potential incremental safety
risks. This  is possible because the delta RPN number is indicative of the incremental  change  in  risk from the
engineering perspective. From the viewpoint of a designer,  a  positive delta RPN  would indicate a directional
reduction in the incremental risk, a zero value would represents essentially no incremental change, and a negative
delta RPN would suggest a directional increase in risk.  Tables 7-4 to 7-8, shown below, present the design and
process FMEA results for the safety-related items from the attached SwRl report.

F.  DISCUSSION OF DESIGN FMEAs FOR CLASSES I AND II

A review of the analyses presented in Tables 7-4 and 7-5 clearly indicates that for both the  WBM (Class I) and
ROM (Class I!) FMEAs, the overall FMEAs are comparable for Phase 2 and the Phase 3 compliant equipment.
Table 7-4 presents the safety-related items of the FMEA  for WBMs. In the WBM (Class I engine) FMEA, SwRI
identified 24 failure modes with the potential  for an impact on safety. In comparing the Phase 3 and Phase 2 RPNs,
11 indicated a positive RPN delta and thus the potential for a directional improvement in safety, while one indicated
a negative  RPN delta and thus the potential  for a directional degradation in  safety, and 12  indicated no overall
change in RPN. Similarly, Table 7-5 presents the safety-related items of the FMEA for ROMs. In the ROM (Class II
engine) FMEA, SwRI identified 25 failure  modes with the potential for an incremental safety  effect. In comparing
the Phase 3 and Phase 2 RPNs, 8 indicated a positive RPN delta and thus the potential for a directional improvement
in safety, while one indicated a negative RPN  delta and thus the potential for a directional degradation in safety, and
16 indicated no overall change in RPN.

Chapter 4 identified seven scenarios for evaluation, and indeed the FMEAs also identified many of the potential            ^
causes listed in Chapter 4 as potential failure modes. The FMEA outcomes for these items will be discussed further            •
in Chapter 8.                                                                                                        ^

There was one hazard pattern identified in the CPSCIPII database where the cause was unknown.  In Chapter 3 this
is identified as "Unspecified: For reasons unspecified, the running Jawn mower catches  fire/explodes." With  no
detail, it is not wise to speculate on the specific cause(s) of these events.  While these types of incidents are not
directly addressed in the FMEA a review of the FMEA tables and the details on incidents of this nature may provide
some perspective. Major engine malfunction  is addressed in the Class I and Class II FMEAs with the conclusion
that there is no change in risk probability number.  Also, fuel line and  fuel tank leak or failure is assessed in the
Class I and Class II design FMEAs with the  general conclusion that the possibility that some manufacturers may
move fuel tanks to address fuel evaporative emission controls could at least directionally reduce the risk probability
number for Phase 3 versus Phase 2 equipment.  In addition, the Class I  and Class II  FMEAs indicate a lower risk
probability  number for debris fires for a properly designed Phase 3 system compared to a current Phase 2 system.
Thus, based on this assessment, to the degree that these  types of potential causes lead to fire in operation, EPA
believes that in an overall sense there will not be an increase in this type of fire for a properly designed Phase 3
system.

The design FMEAs looked at the subsystems/components likely to be modified for compliance with potential Phase
3 exhaust  and  evaporative emission control requirements  and those  affected by  the  modification. Twelve
systems/subsystems were evaluated for both the WBM (Class  I)  and the ROM (Class II). This broad approach was
deemed essential because of the technical interdependency among these systems in creating power and the potential
interactions among these systems in failure mode situations. The potential effect of failure modes on the catalyzed
muffler performance was considered in each item evaluated. No system or subsystem was considered in isolation.

Considering this systems view and the interactions among the subsystems it is worthwhile to discuss the issue of
enleanment, an increase in the intake A/F ratio above the design value.   This can occur because of an increase  in
the available air or a decrease in the available fuel, and is usually a result of a failure of a component or subsystem
upstream of the exhaust manifold.  Concerns have been expressed that enleanment on an engine with a catalyzed
                                                   110

-------
o
muffler could lead to fire and burn risk because the activity of the catalyst would enhance CO oxidation in the
presence of the extra air. However, increased oxidation also occurs in a non-catalyst muffler because the muffler
acts like a thermal reactor.

Even without potential failures exhaust system surface temperatures are above the levels needed for contact bums to
occur. With enleanment the surface temperatures would still be above the temperatures needed for thermal burns to
occur. The FMEA identified three potential failure modes related to leaner mixtures, including situations where the
air filter, the carburetor, or the intake air manifold failed to function as designed.  For all three potential failure
modes even with the-potential for hotter exhaust gas, hotter exhaust system surface temperatures, and/or hotter
engine surface temperatures, the  RPN related to fire and burn  risk is zero or improved for Phase 3 compared to
Phase 2.

The Phase 3 catalyzed system incorporates improvements which  will reduce the surface temperature exposed to the
user.  The improvements include  cooling air from the fan directed over the muffler and the heat shield designed to
cover the entire muffler and  direct that cooling air around the muffler and out designated areas for  maximum
muffler cooling. Therefore, increased temperatures resulting from differing exhaust conditions would not result in a
significant  increased temperature to  the user  over that of a  Phase 2 system  experiencing the same exhaust
conditions.

Process FMEAs

SwRI also performed process  FMEAs on the WBM and the ROM to assess potential failure modes and effects for
three of the most common events  in the life cycle of the engine and equipment. These included refueling, shutdown
and storage, and maintenance. A review of the information provided by CPSC indicates current in-use safety
problems in all three areas.

First, with regard to refueling, in  Table 7-6, SwRI identified 25  aspects of the operation with potential impacts on
safety.  Of these, 12 involved the  actual dispensing of fuel from a gas can into the equipment tank. SwRI's analysis
indicated no change in RPN for Phase 2 and Phase 3 equipment for any of the 25 events involving refueling.

The second process FMEA (Table 7-7) involved shutdown and storage of equipment after use. The IPII data base
provided by CPSC included a number of situations where, for various reasons, equipment stored either outdoors or
indoors after use led to a grass or structure fire. In most cases the causes were not clear, but were presumably related
to grass/leaf debris or combustible material coming into contact with hot surfaces or the ignition of fuel vapor by
sources not related to the mower unit.  SwRI  identified 15 items with  potential  safety implications  related to
shutdown and storage. In none of these did the FMEA indicate any differences in RPN between Phase 2 and Phase
3 equipment.

The third process FMEA (Table 7-8)  involved different  aspects of common maintenance practices  including
cleaning equipment, changing the oil/filter, changing the spark plug, sharpening the cutting blade, and replacing the
drive belt. Of the 16 different  items identified, SwRI identified five in which the RPN improved slightly.  In each of
these, the potential for  fuel  spillage  on the operator or  on hot surfaces during maintenance would be reduced
because of tank and cap changes brought on by potential EPA fuel evaporative emission control requirements.

G.  CONCLUSION

The RPN values are the  output from the FMEA which the engineer would use to rank and prioritize actions which
might be taken to reduce potential risk. Since EPA is most interested in assessing the incremental risk of going from
Phase 2 to Phase 3, the delta RPN as presented in the SwRI analyses is instructive in understanding how design and
performance changes on  the engines/equipment might affect in-use fire and burn risk.

When comparing the delta RPN results for the Phase 2 WBM and Phase 3 WBM design FMEAs and comparing the
delta RPN results for the Phase 2 ROM and Phase 3  ROM design FMEAs the engineer would conclude that the
Phase 3 equipment does not present an increase in risk of fire and burn relative to Phase 2. The FMEAs for both
WBMs and ROMs give  comparable and in  some cases directionally positive results. The engineer's decisions on
                                                                    111

-------
      8-S


      ill,
      III
-=•8
'.i!
 !¥
 5l
Lit

U.



I
CO

w

I
U
 SI
        I
        5
        i
               i
               i
.S> S V>"t
.c e D «

If  1
lit!
                  !l
                    ill

                    si
                         5

                         i
                     II
                   I
                     B,

                     ii
                             | 2
                             .
                             rii
                                        1|1

                                        If §

                                        Ifi Q.
                                     lit


                                      II

                                         I
                                                •2 8'

-------
Ill 8 I
        illi
                 .i
         IS
         •o *
        IS
        Sf

        §1

        f*
        li
        £•8
            *ill
            mi
                           b|

                           £ ^

                           ' I
                                IP

                          f
                        J£1

                        -8fi j

                        58
                                H
 ill
ifll
* « <6 — .
*!^lg
                                        Ipi
                                          S "O
                                          si:
        . - > ",- '..»„;>*,

                                                iiR3i.;V ..

                                                &K1 •'!.',&
   Ic
    S

        "8 B



        I* Si
        till
        E


        •Si
                   Il6(

                   ifll
                                           I
                                          si
~ 1   !

lillll
                             3
                               •s   »
                               "s. 8 3.-O
                                     ill
                               » 'S 8

                                          I

                                          •5
(0

(A

JS

O

-------
UJ
CO
(A
(A
_co
o
   lie
- o
^ z
in
ill
III
ill!
      fi
        I
        fe
           c •— _
           fll
            £
           . •£
         .
        IS '
        111
             fp
             o p »
             llli
                 S-J
               s s
               18
                fl
                = •2
               I
               t.
                 11
              3
              *.
              I!
= s
111
III,
a-Si
*•
•*- W (
o at i
g£j
1^1
                      li
                       111
     tli
     II,
2Si!
^-i

      i!
      £ o
      II
                                li
                             II

-------
S
an
2
H
    10


    0)
    o>
   to
   (0
    (0
    (0
    (0


             ^jLM^at
             ',"0" 11%
             •... ,^4'H
             illll
                    If
                    fili
                                        I
IfJit
sf-
| cj
 slpi
illl-i'
                                      I'll
                           .£«?=&*&  «ES!
          ?   6!
         1*1*583

-------
I
IS
o
    3r-j

    Is
                _
                              as
"M
S&3JIT

-------
   I
       I
       fl)
       s,


       If
      J"J "    *""
I**-
                  II
      ill
      *il
      lit
                         If
                                 if*

                                 111
                                 £ a s
             Il
    I
    4
             I
                    I
                    fe
                    I
        l-
S

I
      c
      Hi!
(fl
fl
(0
0}
(A
JO

O
             Ii

     imi
                          Fl
                                       i E 6,2
                        ~S 3

                        ^ = ,
                         it

-------
UJ

u.


I
n
(O


(A


O
z


1
        * |

        S-S
      i!


       f
                 12
                 « to






                 |l


                 it
              .»

             Iff
             •0.8^°

                       I.
                      t

S g.Ef '
 •E S 2


 ISl-Bg

•si**.!
                    il
                    W »
                       I
                            mi
                              in
                              si(
                                I!!

                                       I
                                       o

                                       i
                                      1"
                                      II
                                      i!
                                          fi
                                               O


                                               1

                                               •s
                     -1


                     |f I


                     |te-|||

                     i?5a 8-9
                                                               I

-------
     I

     I
     i
        •s-itl
        1'fe;^
                 is
                 5
                 i

                 .1
                 1
          snf$l
           IS,"L
           E
           is
M
UJ
*
(0
(A
(0
CO

O
    !3|
     is
     •** "S
     s-j

     ll
0
z
l«fi|£
                      Hi
                       II

                      I  I!

-------
£
SB
5
"3
5

£


2

I

s
    O.

    oi
    11
    O
    I
    11

    fl
ui

S
u.

to
w
0)
O

2
Q.

0)
        n E
        '•= 'c
  o
             Q.
              .11
               IB
               o
 3
 ?
                        >.<¥
                                2
                                01
                               . =
                            l
                           » •§
                                    I
                   0)
§*
OT <0


e-

o
                         5
                         •5
                              &
                              O
                                          a g

                                          '<5
                                          u.
                                          I
                         !
                         o
                                           =5
                               J
                               ^
                                                    1
                                                            II
                                                            Sf
                                       £


                                       1

                                     <5 8
                                                            111
                                                          3
                                            •8
                                            w.
                                                               §
                                                      =
                                                  5 c"
                                                  ;=
                                           1
Mil
2^|j
   aj
                                            Q)
                                            or
                                   t
                                                        S E

                                                       §
                                                              o

                                      8

                                      I




                                      I
                                                                   I
                                                  S

-------
        •OQ.
   — n
   5
     N


   if



   tsi
 . (Q
 I
 I

  (N
til
s|l
  o) >c
< S3 O
                   4> Q>

                   ® 8

                   sf
. m
»

 

M-
 0>

a:
                                   I

                                   3
                                                   I
                                           I

                                           I
                                           ffi
                                           '5
                                                          c
                                                               c
                                                               c
                                                                    t
                                        a

                                        €

                                        O
\J

I
         iS
         a.
              •a
                                  •g
                                  a
                                        Q

                                        C
                                     s
                                     a.
                                     3

                                     •s

-------
<
UJ
 (A
 (0
 0)
 O

 2
Q_

 O)
 o
 3
M—
 0)
o:
     z
     oJ
II
    3*
      •s
II
          2?
          £
          n
          W.
      o
      &
         sf
          M
          CS
          CD
               •OQ.

               O
               CE

                 "
               II
            I
            W
           °8

           t» (D
                      ^

                      S =».
                      S 'C

                  s
                  I
                  I
                   ! »
                  CL

                  I
                       III
                             M
                         c

                         a
                         i5

                         2
                       II
                             0)
                             £
                             xi a.
                             o
                             c "o

                             r
                               CM
                             I
                                   M
                                  SS
                              * JT

                              r

-------
CO

-------

-------
                                                                                                                                                                   r-
                                                                                                                                                                   c-i
u
B
 a
•*•
 a

-------
V)
Q>
O

2
Q.
o
u
c
OS
c
o
    0.
    o:
   o
   Ii
   Si
   I
   o.
    « £
    n
         80)
       „"
        o

        o
"S
a
            1
            s
            i1
    tn
    5
    0)
    m
        80)
        m

       ji
       If
        I
       £

       >'

       T3
       si:
       III
       E o) IT
        •g <&
        E
                                                                              I

-------
129

-------
8.      Conclusions - Impact of Phase  3  Exhaust Standards on Class I
        and Class II  NHH Engines

In this chapter, EPA draws conclusions based upon:

     1.  the results of laboratory testing conducted with EPA prototypes of engines with Phase 3 exhaust emissions
        control systems,

     2.  the results of laboratory testing conducted with current Phase 2 engines, and

     3.  the results of the FMEA for each of the key scenarios used to evaluate the incremental risk associated with
        advanced emission control technology for NHH engines and equipment.

     In all cases, based on the data presented in this report, EPA concludes that the catalyst-based Phase 3 standard
     under consideration poses no incremental increase  in the risk of fire or burn for Class I and Class II  NHH
     engines.

SCENARIO 1: CONTACT BURNS

Scenario Description: Thermal burns due to inadvertent contact with hotsurface on engine or equipment.

Potential Causes:

    a.   muffler surface temperature increases due to debris inhibiting flow of cooling air

    b.   higher temperatures on mower deck or around muffler due to higher radiant heat load from muffler or
        engine

    c.   muffler temperature increase due to air-to-fuel ratio enleanment caused by calibration drift over time, fuel
        system problems or air filter element mat-maintenance

    d.   exhaust gas leaks increase surface temperatures

Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:

    a.   Muffler surface temperature increases due to debris inhibiting flaw of cooling air: Engines equipped with
        catalyst-mufflers showed no greater propensity to trap debris than those equipped with  OEM mufflers,
        even during operation in high-debris environments in the field. Both laboratory  and field testing showed
        that properly designed catalyst-mufflers could achieve comparable, or even cooler, surface temperatures
        relative to today's OEM muffler designs.  EPA did  find evidence of cooling air being blocked by debris
        during field testing  for some engine designs, regardless of exhaust system configuration (see figure 6-36).
        A partially blocked cooling system could potentially limit the amount of cooling air available for forced
        convective cooling of the exhaust system, and this could occur whether or not the engine is equipped with
        a catalyst. Engines 244 and 245 in Class I and all of the Class II engines tested were designed with coarse
        screens on the inlet to the cooling fan.  Engines with properly designed cooling fan air-inlet screens had
        minimal or no issues regarding debris ingestion and blockages within the engine cooling  system. Debris
        build-up on muffler surfaces did not occur on engines equipped with air-shrouding for muffler or catalyst-
        muffler cooling. Properly designed systems were capable of grass cutting operations to  near the end of
        useful life with minimal build-up of debris either within the cooling system or on exhaust  system surfaces
        (engines 231, 232,  233, 244, 245, 251). These grass cutting  operations included high-debris conditions
        that led to nearly complete blockage of the cooling systems on engines 246,248,249 and 259. Retrofitting
        the engines with a screen near the air-inlet to the cooling fan resolved the debris-blockage issue.
                                                                                                  130

-------
b.  Higher temperatures on mower deck or around muffler due to higher radiant heal load from muffler or
    engine:  EPA laboratory testing and field testing clearly indicate that comparable, or even cooler, surface
    temperatures can be achieved for properly designed catalyst-mufflers relative to today's OEM  mufflers
    (see Chapter 6).  Most Phase 2-compliant engines already have sufficient cooling-air capacity to manage
    heat rejection  from properly designed catalyst-mufflers, and  cooling  system designs will be carried or
    improved for Phase 3 engines. Proper catalyst design for minimizing heat load includes the use of catalyst
    designs that minimize of CO oxidation through careful selection of catalyst size, washcoating composition
    and PGM loading.  Comparisons of surface temperatures between OEM  muffler  and catalyst-muffler
    configurations for a broad range of engine families and operational conditions are presented within Chapter
    6.

c.  Muffler temperature increase due to air-to-fuel ratio enleanment caused by calibration drift over time, foel
    system problems or air filter element mal-maintenance: Conditions of richer and leaner alr-to-fuel ratios,
    as well as little to no change in air-to-fuel ratio, have been observed on the engines EPA has tested as they
    have accumulated hours, and can occur whether the engine is equipped with a catalyst-muffler or with
    current OEM muffler designs.  Leaner air-to-fuel ratios tend to lead to increased exhaust gas temperatures.
    While exhaust temperatures would increase regardless of the presence of a catalyst, the concern is that
    excessive  exhaust system  surface temperatures would occur if the  engine operated  near or lean of
    stoichiometry due to the increased availability of oxygen in the exhaust for CO oxidation over the catalyst.

    The only induction system problem that EPA has observed as a consistent cause of lean operation at high
    hours has been a failure of the seal between the carburetor and intake manifold with one particular family
    of Class I engine. This particular engine  family uses a plastic, tubular intake manifold design without a
    manifold flange onto which the carburetor can directly mount.  Instead, the carburetor seals to the manifold
    tube by deforming an O-ring located between the carburetor, a carburetor support, and the tube. With this
    design, a flat-spot often wears onto the O-ring over time due to engine vibration and insufficient support of
 *  the weight of the carburetor, resulting in an air leak into the induction system that bypasses the carburetor
    and causes lean  operation.  This was a common occurrence during  field  aging of lawn mower engines in
    southeast Michigan with three out of four engines from the same engine family as engine 258 having an
    intake manifold O-ring failure and subsequent induction leak with lean operation. Some of the engines that
    had intake-manifold gasket failures in the field  were tested  by EPA, and  then  sent to an independent
    laboratory for tear-down and inspection.  The engines were at or close to catastrophic mechanical failure
    (complete inoperability), and in one case the engine could not be started  and run on the  dynamometer for
    testing.  These engines had:

        1.  Greatly reduced power output (up to 40% lower)

        2.  Very poor load pickup

        3.  Failed head gaskets

        4.  Cylinder head temperatures exceeding 300 °C and oil temperatures of 180 to 200 °C at high loads

        5.  Greatly increased oil consumption, due to cylinder bore distortion and loss of oil viscosity at high
            temperatures

        6.  Visible smoke coming from the exhaust (see Figure 8-1)

    In the event  of an  induction system failure resulting in  a  severe  manifold  air leak and  lean-of-
    stoichiometric operation, an increased catalyst exotherm would occur as long as the catalyst is active. Net
    lean operation with an air-cooled engine at above moderate load conditions would  also result in engine
    damage,  and would likely result in deactivation of the catalyst from  both thermal sintering  and oil-
    poisoning.   In extreme cases, lean operation and high oil  consumption may lead to substrate failure or
    plugging of the monolith which may result in engine inoperability.
                                                                                                  131

-------
    Figure 8-1:  Smoke plume at idle from Class I engine with failed intake manifold and head gasket.
    Use of a proper intake manifold design with positive sealing through a flat intake manifold flange, along
    with proper mechanical support of the mass of the carburetor minimizes the likelihood of lean-drift of the
    air-to-fuel  ratio over time.   Other engine families tested by EPA  that used more typical flat-flange-
    mounting systems on their intake manifolds or, in some cases, direct mounting of a side-draft carburetor to
    the intake port with no manifold, together with robust carburetor support did not exhibit any significant
    trend towards lean operation at high hours.

    Catalyst deactivation is an emissions compliance issue, engine manufacturers will need to use robust intake
    manifold designs and carburetor supports in order to comply with the  Phase 3 emissions regulations to the
    end of the engines' useful life.  Such designs should reduce or eliminate the occurrence of lean air-to-fuel
    ratio drift,  and should improve both the  safety and the durability of Phase 3 engines relative to today's
    Phase 1 and Phase 2 engines.  Another  alternative for walk-behind  lawn mowers would be to entirely
    prevent operation of a malfunctioning engine via the use of a low cost (<$1.00), self-resetting bimetal-disk
    thermal switch to shut down the engine's ignition  system if a pre-set temperature is exceeded.   Bimetal
    devices are already commonly used on Class I lawn mower engines to provide automatic choke activation,
    and  are  non-contact devices that  are  mounted  directly behind the muffler  to  sense exhaust heat.
    Noncontact bimetal shut-off switches are used in a wide variety of consumer products, including portable
    hair-driers, irons, battery-electric lawn mowers, home water heaters and clothes driers.

    The impact of air filter mal-maintenance  on emissions and air-to-fuel ratio has been significantly reduced
    since the advent of the Phase 2 emission standards in the US. The majority of carburetors used with Phase
    2 engines are equipped with float bowl venting that provides compensation for air-filter mal-maintenance.
    Thus changes in carburetor air-inlet restriction are already largely compensated for by design.

d.  Exhaust system leaks: The hypothesis is  that an exhaust leak would allow significant air entrainment into
    the exhaust system upstream of the  catalyst, leading  to increased CO oxidation and increased catalyst-
    muffler surface temperatures. The layout of existing Class I and Class II exhaust  systems would  make the
    occurrence of this phenomenon extremely unlikely. The relatively close coupled exhaust systems used by
    Class I and Class II engines along with the exhaust restriction imposed by the muffler and catalyst would
    cause exhaust leaks out of the exhaust system, but would limit ambient air leakage into the exhaust system
    to a negligible  level since the pressure pulsations in the exhaust are entirely or nearly entirely at a higher
    pressure than ambient.

    Controlled  "leakage" of air into exhaust systems is used as a method of providing secondary air for exhaust
    catalyst systems.  Examples  include the  stamped venturi used by  European  catalyst-mufflers on  Class I
    engines (see figure 5-1) and the check-valve pulse-air systems used with some motorcycle catalyst systems
    and used by automobiles in the 1980s and early 1990s.  It is highly  unlikely that an exhaust leak would
    occur in  a  manner that would produce the exact shape and exhaust flow restriction necessary for venturi
    induction of air into the exhaust.
                                                                                                   132

-------
        Pulse-air systems rely on exhaust gas pulsation to just below ambient pressure to draw air into the exhaust
        through a check-valve.  Such systems rely on the fact that exhaust traveling through a long pipe has inertia
        and the flow is compressible.  Between exhaust valve events, the inertia of the exhaust gases can create
        temporary conditions at which the exhaust gases are below ambient pressure, allowing ambient air to be
        entrained into  the  exhaust system.  While the  pulse-air phenomenon  has been  used successfully with
        catalyst systems in numerous automotive and motorcycle applications, attempts to apply pulse-air systems
        to Class I and Class II engines have not been successful.  Class  I lawn mower mufflers are most often
        mounted directly to the exhaust port, although some are mounted up to 4-inches downstream of the exhaust
        port.  Class II  lawn tractor mufflers are mounted approximately 8-inches to 2-feet downstream of the
        exhaust port. EPA attempted to apply  check-valve pulse air systems to both Class I  and Class II engines
        during early development of exhaust catalyst systems in support of the Phase 3 rule.  With such close
        coupling of the exhaust system, the inertia of the exhaust gases traveling from the exhaust port and the
        exhaust system upstream of the catalyst-muffler resulted in exhaust pressure that did not fall below ambient
        pressure between exhaust valve closing and opening events, and thus there was no net change in exhaust
        stoichiometry.   Similarly, EPA expects that leakage in these systems would obey physics and result in
        exhaust gases traveling from the higher pressures found within the exhaust system to the lower pressures
        found in the ambient without any significant amount of air moving in the opposite direction.

Temperatures above the human skin burn threshold exist with  current production OEM mufflers' under a broad
range of normal operating conditions. Proper design and layout of the exhaust system can minimize occurrences of
touch-burns regardless of whether or not the exhaust system incorporates a catalyst or if a system fault occurs.  EPA
demonstrated similar or cooler operating temperatures for properly-designed catalyst-mufflers  compared to today's
OEM mufflers (see Chapter 6). Catalyst-mufflers equipped with air shrouds and exhaust ejectors in some cases
resulted in systems that were significantly cooler than many current OEM  muffler designs.
                                                                                                     133

-------
Conclusions Based on FMEA of Burn Safety

The  potential  for increased  temperature which could increase thermal bums was assessed in various engine
subsystems and processes within the FMEA. In the FMEA protocol, if the effect of the potential failure was bum or
increased burn risk the item was given a severity classification of 9. There were 58 items in the 5 FMEAs which
indicated burn or increased bum risk as the potential effect of failure. As can be seen in Table 8-1 below, there was
not a significant change in risk probability for burns in going from a Phase 2 engine to a properly designed Phase 3
system. Overall, 17 items  in the five FMEAs indicated the potential for a small improvement in risk probability,
two indicated the potential for a small degradation, and 39 indicated no change.

Table 8-1: Burns Safety FMEA Summary - Incremental Change from Phase 2 to Phase 3
FMEA Type
Design
Class I:
Class II:
Process
Refueling:
Shutdown/Storage:
Maintenance:
Number of Items with
Burn as the Potential
Effect of Failure
Number with
Potential
Improvement
Number with
No Change
Number with
Potential
Degradation*

19
21
10
7
8
13
1
1

8
|J_
5
0
0
0
8
5
5
0
0
0
* These two items are discussed in Chapter 7, section G.

SCENARIO 2:  DEBRIS FIRE

Scenario Description: Grass and leaf debris on engine/ equipment

Potential Causes

    a.   muffler surface temperature increases due to debris inhibiting flow of cooling air, debris trapped in tight
        areas blocks air flow, dries out and heats up

    b.   higher temperatures on mower deck or around muffler due to higher radiant heat load from muffler or
        engine

    c.   muffler temperature increase due to air-to-fuel ratio enleanment caused by calibration drift over time, fuel
        system problems or air filter element mal-maintenance

    d.   exhaust gas leaks increase surface temperatures

    e.   misfueling: use of highly oxygenated fuel  such as E85

Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:

    a.   Muffler temperature increases due to debris inhibiting flaw of cooling air, debris trapped in tight areas
        blocks airflow, dries out and heats up:  As mentioned in the previous section on touch burns, engines
        equipped with properly-designed catalyst-mufflers have no greater propensity to trap  debris than those
        equipped  with OEM mufflers,  and have  successfully operated to full useful  life in the field under
        conditions that included high-debris environments.   Both laboratory and field testing have shown that
        properly designed catalyst-mufflers can achieve comparable, or even cooler, surface temperatures relative
        to today's OEM muffler designs. The combination of air shrouding and the use of exhaust ejectors can be
        expected to provide significant improvements  in prevention of debris build-up and debris ignition by
        lowering surface temperatures, lowering  exhaust gas  outlet temperatures, and improving debris clearance
        over hot exhaust system surfaces.
                                                                                                    134

-------
    b.   Higher temperatures on mower deck or around muffler due to higher radiant heat load from muffler or
        engine or exhaust system leaks;  As mentioned in the previous section on touch bums, EPA laboratory
        testing and field testing clearly indicates that comparable, or even  cooler, surface temperatures can be
        achieved for properly  designed catalyst-mufflers  relative to today's OEM mufflers  (see Chapter  6).
        Systems using forced-air cooling and exhaust ejectors will actually radiate significantly less onto mower
        deck surfaces than many existing OEM muffler systems.

    c.   Muffler temperature increase due to air-to-fuel ratio enleanment caused by calibration drift over time,  air
       filter element mal-maintenance, or exhaust system leaks:  As mentioned in the previous section on touch
        burns,  air-to-fuel  ratio  drift can be largely eliminated via moderate improvements to  induction system
        designs.  Such improvements will be necessary in order to comply with Phase 3 emission standards at full
        useful  life, and will result  in  improvements to both engine durability  and safety.  A  low-cost bimetal
        ignition cut-off switch could also be used for walk-behind lawn mower applications to prevent excessive
        exhaust system surface temperatures in the event of a system failure causing excessively lean operation.

    d.   Exhaust gas leaks increase surface temperatures:  As mentioned in  the previous section on touch burns,
        the exhaust backpressure and layout of Class I and Class II exhaust systems will result in leaks of exhaust
        gases out of the system, but not air into the system. Thus exhaust leakage cannot appreciably change
        exhaust stoichiometry, increase CO oxidation, or increase catalyst-muffler temperatures.

    e.   Misfueling: use of highly oxygenated fuel such as £85:  Misfueling  a Phase 3 Class I or Class II engine
        with E85 would most likely result in an engine incapable of starting.  While E85 is not yet widely available
        in the  U.S., its use  is increasing in centrally fueled  fleets.  The air-to-fuel of ratio of an  engine with a
        similar carburetor calibration to today's Phase 2 engines would be beyond the lean-flammability limit for
        sustaining E85 combustion if the tank were completely filled with E85. Misfueling with a lesser amount of
        E85  would result in anything from no effect at all to lean-misfire or inoperability depending on the ratio
        with which it is blended with gasoline.  A significant degree of lean misfire would rapidly deactivate the
        catalyst, posing emissions compliance issues but not necessarily safety issues. The carburetor calibration
        of Phase 3 engines would likely follow current Phase 2 design practice and would allow engine operation
        on up  to 10% ethanol  in a gasoline blend.   Misfueling beyond 10% ethanol would result  in leaner than
        normal exhaust  stoichiometry, but would  not  necessarily result in higher  exhaust  gas temperatures.
        Ethanol has a lower net heat of combustion than gasoline, which effectively would "de-rate" engine power
        output. Ethanol also can evaporatively cool the  intake charge.  Both effects would contribute to lowering
        combustion and exhaust temperatures.

Temperatures capable of causing debris ignition occur under normal operating conditions with current production
OEM mufflers.  Proper design and layout of the exhaust system are necessary to  minimize occurrences of debris
ignition regardless of whether or not the exhaust system  incorporates a catalyst.  EPA demonstrated similar or
cooler  operating temperatures   for  properly-designed catalyst-mufflers compared to  today's  OEM mufflers.
Catalyst-mufflers equipped with air-shrouds and exhaust  ejectors in  some  cases resulted  in systems that were
significantly  cooler than  many  current OEM muffler designs, and such designs would be  expected to decrease,
rather than increase, the incidence ignition of debris.  Current OEM designs and EPA testing have demonstrated that
air-shrouding and forced-air  cooling can be incorporated into the exhaust system designs in a manner that not only
results in negligible accumulation of debris  on hot exhaust system surfaces, but can even assist with clearing debris
from hot exhaust system surfaces if proper  attention is paid to cooling air velocity  and maintaining sufficient gaps
within  the shrouding around the  exhaust  system.  Testing results  for  extended  idling under dry, high debris
conditions show that turf surface temperatures rapidly stabilize (under five minutes) and also demonstrate that turf
surface temperatures under and adjacent to lawn tractors equipped with catalyst-muffler can be comparable, or even
cooler  than, turf surface temperatures underneath and adjacent to current lawn  tractors equipped with OEM mufflers
(see Chapter 6).

Conclusions Based on FMEA of Debris Fire Safety

The potential for increased temperature which could  exacerbate the possibility for debris fires was  identified as a
potential effect of failure  in the Class  ! and Class II engine subsystems and the  refueling  and  storage/shutdown
                                                                                                      135

-------
process FMEAs. In the FMEA protocol, if the effect of the potential failure was fire or increased fire risk the item
was given a severity classification of 10 or 9, respectively. There were 23 items in the four FMEAs which indicated
fire or increased fire risk related to debris as the potential effect of failure (e.g., not related to fuel or backfire). As
can be seen in Table  10-2, below, there were not significant changes in risk probability  for debris fires in going
from  current Phase 2 engines to a properly designed Phase 3 system. Overall, seven items in the four FMEAs
indicated the potential for a small  improvement in the  risk probability, two indicated the potential for a  small
degradation, and 14 indicated no change.

Table 8-2:  Debris Fire Safety FMEA Summary - Incremental Change from Phase 2 to Phase 3
FMEA Type



Design
Class 1:
Class II:
Process
Refueling:
Shutdown/Storage:
Number of Items with
Debris Fire as the
Potential Effect of
Failure
Number with
Potential
Improvement

Number with
No Change


Number with
Potential
Degradation*


8
8
4
3
3
4
1
1

1
6
0
0
1
6
0
0
* These two items are the same as indicated for contact burn since the potential effect was fire or burn. These two
items are discussed in Chapter 7, section G.
SCENARIO 3 FUEL LEAK

Scenario Description: Fires due to fuel leaks on hot surfaces

Potential Causes:

    a.  faulty fuel tank

    b.  faulty fuel line or connection

    c.  tip-over during maintenance

    d.  tip over in operation

    e.  faulty carburetor

    f.  heat affects fuel tank or fuel line integrity



Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:

The faults encountered due to fuel leakage can  potentially occur with equal frequency for engines equipped with
current OEM muffler designs or with catalyst-mufflers.  As indicated above, EPA's testing has shown that properly
designed catalyst-muffler systems can achieve comparable, or even cooler, surface temperatures relative to today's
OEM muffler designs.   Additionally, proper catalyst-muffler thermal management as demonstrated in EPA's test
program will result in no significant increase in  heat load on fuel system components.  Surface temperatures above
the auto-ignition temperature for gasoline occur during normal operation for engines equipped with both OEM
'mufflers and engines equipped with catalyst-mufflers;  thus, an equal potential exists for ignition of fuel  on hot
surfaces if a leak or spillage occurs.    Because the Phase 3 regulations address  evaporative and running loss
                                                                                                      136

-------
emissions, EPA expects that the frequency and severity of fuel leakage and fuel-related fires will be reduced relative
to today's Phase 1 and Phase 2 equipment.  Compliance with Phase 3 standards will require improvements in tank
materials, fuel line materials and fuel line connections, and wilt reduce the likelihood of failure and/or leakage.
Running loss controls on lawn tractors will likely require replacement of front-mounted (engine compartment
mounted) fuel tanks with rear-mounted fuel tanks, moving both refueling operations and  spillage in the event of
turn-over into a location that is further away from hot engine components.  Phase 3 compliant venting systems also
include cap designs which have the propensity to reduce fuel  loss in the event of tipping of equipment  either
inadvertently or during  maintenance.  Fuel leakage during maintenance and  storage can also be limited to the
quantity of fuel in the  carburetor float-bowl by equipping lawn mowers and lawn tractors with inexpensive, positive
fuel cut-off valves. Fuel cut-off valves are frequently used in consumer lawn-care products.

Conclusions Based on FMEAof Fuel Spills or Leaks

The potential for increased fuel leaks or spills from equipment creating a fire risk was identified  as a potential effect
of failure in the Class I and Class II engine subsystems and the maintenance process FMEA. In the FMEA protocol,
if the effect of the potential failure was fire or increased fire risk the item was given a severity classification of 10 or
9, respectively. There  were 16 items in the three FMEAs which  indicated fire  or increased fire risk related to fuel
spill or leak from equipment as the potential effect of failure. As can be seen in Table 8-3, below, there were modest
positive changes in risk probability for fuel  spill or leak related fires in going from current Phase 2 engines to a
properly designed Phase 3  system.  Overall, eight items in the three FMEAs indicated the potential for a small
improvement in risk probability, none indicated the potential for degradation, and eight indicated no change.  The
positive  changes were  related  to  improved  fuel tank  designs  related to  fuel evaporative emission control
requirements.

Table 8-3:  Fuel Leak or Spill Safety FMEA Summary - Incremental Change from Phase 2 to Phase 3
FMEA Type



Design
Class I:
Class II:
Process
Maintenance:
Number of Items with
Fuel-Related Fire as
the Potential Effect of
Failure
Number with
Potential
Improvement

Number with
No Change


Number with
Potential
Degradation


6
7
3
2
4
5
0
0

3
3
0
0
                                                                                                      137

-------
SCENARIO 4: REFUELING-RELATED

Scenario Description: Fires related to spilled fuel or refueling vapor

Potential Causes:

    a.   fiiel spilled on hot surfaces

    b.   spilled fuel evaporates or refueling vapors lead to fire indoors

Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:

EPA field test hot-soak data showed that at the manufacturer's specified minimum two minute refueling point after
engine shutdown,  exhaust system  surface temperatures  for  properly designed catalyst-muffler systems were
comparable or cooler than current OEM mufflers.  The field tests also showed that exposed surface temperatures
rapidly decayed to below the autoignition temperature for gasoline after engine shut-down for all of the lawn tractor
and lawn mower configurations tested (see Chapter 6).

Based on CPSC NE1SS cases for the five year period of 2000-2004, there was an estimated yearly average of 3,814
emergency room treated thermal burn  injuries associated with lawn mowers.   Refueling activities accounted for
approximately 7% of these injuries.  EPA estimates that approximately  1.5 billion refueling events occur per year
for lawn and garden equipment.  While  CPSC NEISS cases involved fires  from refueling events, the relative
infrequency of refueling fires in comparison with the very large number of refueling events demonstrates that fires
from refueling of lawn and garden equipment are relatively infrequent.  The surface temperature data indicates that
the relative  infrequency of refueling fires with this equipment is  probably due to surface temperatures rapidly
decreasing to below the minimum gasoline surface ignition temperature  of approximately 280  °C.'  This rapid
decrease in  surface  temperatures  is comparable  equivalent  between Phase  2  and expected  Phase 3 system
configurations (see Chapter 6, section C).

Refueling of lawn mowers or lawn tractors in enclosed areas is hazardous and recommendations against this
practice are included in  equipment owner's manuals.   EPA's field and laboratory data  showed that properly
designed catalyst-muffler  systems can achieve comparable, or even  cooler, surface temperatures relative to today's
OEM muffler designs. While refueling in an enclosed area is certainly inadvisable under any circumstances, such
misuse with a Phase 3 lawn mower or lawn tractor would not pose any additional fire risk beyond the already
considerable risk of this practice with current Phase 1 and Phase 2 equipment.

The required changes to fuel systems that will be necessary for compliance with Phase 3 permeation and running
loss emissions standards will also reduce the potential for refueling fires for lawn tractors. Relocation of fuel tanks
from the engine compartment to the rear of lawn tractors will greatly reduce the likelihood  of spilled fuel coming
into contact with hot engine surfaces.

Conclusions Based on FMEA of Refueling-Related  Safety

The potential for refueling-related fires where the  equipment was involved was identified as a potential effect of
failure in the refueling process FMEA (see Table 7-6). There were 11 items in  the FMEA which indicated fire
related to refueling as the potential effect  of failure. As  can be seen in Table 8-4 below, while fuel evaporative
emission controls present the  possibility  for improvement, overall there was no change in risk  probability for
refueling-related fires in going from current Phase 2 engines to a properly designed Phase 3 system.
                                                                                                     138

-------
Table 8-4: Refueling Related Safety FMEA Summary - Incremental Change from Phase 2 to Phase 3
FMEA Type
Process
Refueling:
Number of Items with
Refueling-Related Fire
as the Potential Effect
of Failure
Number with
Potential
Improvement
Number with
No Change
Number with
Potential
Degradation

11
0 | 11
0
SCENARIO 5: STORAGE AND SHUTDOWN

Scenario Description: Equipment or structure fire when equipment left unattended after use.

Potential Causes:

    a.   ignition of nearby easily combustible materials

    b.   ignition of fuel vapor by pilot light

    c.   ignition of dry debris on deck

    d.   ignition of dry debris in field (lawn tractors)

    e.   ignition of tarp or other cover thrown over equipment

Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:

Surface temperatures during hot soak conditions following engine shut-down were comparable between equipment
tested by EPA with catalyst-mufflers and with OEM mufflers (see Chapter 6).  Conditions certainly exist under
which combustible materials can be ignited if the equipment is misused, mal-rnaintained, or stored improperly. The
relative frequency of incidences of this sort should be no different for Phase 3 lawn mowers and lawn tractors than
is the case for current Phase 1 and Phase 2 equipment. Throwing a tarp over a recently run lawn mower can result
in ignition of the tarp regardless of whether or not the lawn mower is equipped with a catalyst-muffler.

While  it is certainly inadvisable to  store lawn tractors  and  lawn mowers in enclosures with open flames (e.g.,
storage of equipment in an attached garage near a water heater or furnace), the frequency of ignition of fuel vapor
by pilot lights should be reduced with Phase 3 equipment  relative Phase  1 and Phase 2 equipment.  This is due to the
reduction in volatile organic compound concentrations in the immediate  vicinity of the equipment through the use of
evaporative emissions controls that comply with the Phase 3 emission standards.

Conclusions Based on FMEA of Shutdown and Storage Safety

The potential for ignition of fuel or other adjacent materials was assessed  in the shutdown and storage process
FMEA, There were  10 items in  the FMEA which indicated fire or increased fire risk related to  shutdown and
storage (see Table 7-7) as the potential effect of failure. As can be seen in Table 8-5 below, there were no changes
in risk probability for storage and shutdown  related fires in going from current Phase 2 engines to  a properly
designed Phase 3 system.  This is the case because the hot surface cool down profiles for Phase 2 equipment and
properly designed Phase 3 equipment are comparable.
                                                                                                    139

-------
Table 8-5:  Shutdown and Storage FMEA Safety Summary - Incremental Change from Phase 2 to Phase 3
FMEA Type
Process
Shutdown/Storage:
Number of Items with
Shutdown/Storage Fire
as the Potential Effect
of Failure
Number with
Potential
Improvement
Number with
No Change
Number with
Potential
Degradation

10
0
10
0
SCENARIO 6: IGNITION MISFIRE

Scenario Description: Engine malfunction which results in an ignitable mixture of unburnt fuel and air in the
muffler.

Potential Causes:

    a.  misfire caused by partial failure in ignition system (single cylinder engines)

    b.  misfire caused by failure in ignition system, particularly complete failure of ignition for one cylinder (2
        cylinder V-twin engines)

    c.  after-fire/backfire caused by engine run on after ignition shut-down due to failure of the engine flywheel
        brake or carburetor fuel-cut solenoid

Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:

Ignition misfire can rapidly  result  in catalyst deactivation. Because of this, EPA predicts that ignition system
improvements that include use of higher output ignition coils and higher-quality ignition wires will be necessary to
ensure compliance  with the  Phase 3 emission standards.  These  improvements will decrease the incidence of
ignition misfire relative to Class  1  and Class 2 equipment.  Still,  of the potential failure modes that can occur,
ignition misfire is the condition of most concern with regards to the use of catalyst-mufflers with Class I lawn
mowers and Class II lawn tractors.  This is the only condition that has been identified that provides both excess fuel
and excess air simultaneously to exhaust system internal surfaces in a proportion that can support combustion.

    a.  Single-cylinder engine misfire:  The design approach taken by EPA to address ignition misfire with engine
        255  was to divide  the  catalyst volume between locations upstream and downstream of secondary air
        entrainment ("pre-catalyst" and "main catalyst").  These changes improved catalyst efficiency relative to
        total catalyst volume,- and  allowed  a reduction in the amount of secondary air used.  The  reduction in
        secondary  air reduced CO oxidation and reduced surface temperatures during normal operation.  This
        resulted in surface temperatures below that of the OEM muffler during normal operation,  and. allowed
        further engineering margin for a temperature increase to occur with the catalyst-muffler during misfire.
        The pre-catalyst was also optimized for relatively rich operation (similar to 2-stroke catalyst applications)
        and reduced HC emissions upstream of the entrainment of secondary air both during normal operation and
        during misfire.  This allowed the use of a smaller main catalyst downstream of the secondary air. During
        misfire, the smaller, space-velocity  limited main catalyst was overwhelmed with reactants, thus reducing
        heat rejection from the main catalyst during misfire.  A moderate but manageable increase in temperature
        was observed for this system, and surface temperatures during misfire were  still within 60 °C of normal
        operating temperatures with the standard muffler.  Use of air-shrouding, forced-air cooling of the exhaust
        and use of an exhaust ejector was more than sufficient to counter the impact of misfire on catalyst-muffler
        surface temperatures.   An alternative  approach would be to use a low cost, self-resetting  bimetal-disk
        thermal switch to shut down the engine's ignition system if high temperatures  are encountered near exhaust
        system surfaces due to a partial ignition system failure.
                                                                                                      140

-------
    b.  V-twin ignition misfire:  Conditions exist under which lawn tractors equipped with V-twin engines can
        operate with one cylinder's ignition system completely deactivated and operate in a manner in which the
        failure may not be immediately apparent to the operator of the equipment.  This is potentially a more
        hazardous condition than could occur with ignition misfire from a single cylinder engine since a full air
        and fuel charge from the deactivated engine cylinder can mix with the hot exhaust gases from the active
        engine cylinder and impinge on hot surfaces within the muffler. A similar degree of misfire with a single
        cylinder engine would result in engine stalling.  One solution would be to divide the exhaust system such
        that there is one small catalyst  substrate for each of the two cylinders  of the V-twin.  This could be
        accomplished with two catalyst mufflers, or with a single catalyst muffler with completely separate flow-
        paths for each  cylinder.  In the case of full ignition misfire on one  cylinder, the exhaust gases would
        rapidly cool to below the light-off temperature for HC over the catalyst for the section of the catalyst-
        muffler fed by non-firing cylinder.

    c.  After fire caused by engine run-on after shutdown:  EPA testing demonstrated that a properly designed
        catalyst-muffler can reduce the incidence of after-fire during run-on relative to  a current OEM muffler
        system (see Chapter 6). Design principles for preventing after-fire flame propagation in mufflers are well
        understood, and can be incorporated into a muffler's baffles and internal  passages, and can be combined
        with spark arresting at the muffler outlet.

Conclusions Based on FMEA of Ignition Misfire

The potential for an increase in misfire-related phenomena to cause an increase in fires or burns was assessed as a'
potential effect of failure in the Class I and  Class II engine subsystems.  In the FMEA protocol, if the effect of the
potential failure was burn, fire or increased fire risk the item was given a severity classification  of 9 or 10. There
were four items in the two FMEAs which listed fire or increased burn risk related to misfire as the potential failure
mode. As can be seen in Table 8-6, below, there were modest positive changes in risk probability for misfire  in
going from current Phase 2 engines to a properly designed Phase 3 system.  Overall, three items in the two FMEAs
indicated the potential for a small improvement, none indicated the potential for degradation, and one indicated no
change.   The positive changes were  related to the expected  improvements in the ignition system for a properly
designed Phase 3 system,

Table 8-6:  Misfire Safety PMEA Summary_— Incremental Change from Phase 2 to Phase 3
FMEA Type
Design
Class I:
Class II:
Number of Items with
Misfire Potential
Failure Mode
Number with
Potential
Improvement
Number with
No Change
Number with
Potential
Degradation

2
2
2
1
"0
I
0
0
                                                                                                      141

-------
 SCENARIO 7: RICH OPERATION

Scenario Description: Fire due to operation with richer than designed air-to-fuel ratio in engine or catalyst.

Potential Causes:

    a.   fuel system degradation such as faulty carburetor, oil consumption or carburetor deposits

    b.   faulty or misapplied choke

    c.   ignition system failure

    d.   air filter element mal-maintenance

    e.   debris blocks catalyst venturi

Conclusions Based on EPA Testing of Phase 2 engines and Phase 3 Prototypes:

Based on EPA testing, the impact of richer  air-to-fuel ratios appears to be minimal with respect to exhaust surface
temperatures (figure 6-35) on both OEM muffler and properly designed catalyst-muffler systems.  This is not
surprising since during rich operation, exhaust gas oxygen concentrations are low and thus CO oxidation is reduced.
Extremely rich air-to-fuel ratios could cause after-fire in the muffler at some conditions. This was not observed in
EPA testing at rich air-to-fuet ratio conditions for either the OEM muffler or the catalyst-muffler, or in earlier tests
of an engine with a malfunctioning carburetor float valve (engine #1514)'°.  EPA's work with run-on after-fire
suggests that with proper design, flame-arresting  can be easily incorporated into catalyst-muffler designs to reduce
the incidence of after-fire for catalyst-mufflers relative to current OEM mufflers. Overly rich air-to-fuel ratios pose
an emissions compliance issue by increasing engine-wear and engine-out emission degradation over time and by
reducing catalyst efficiency by partial deactivation of the catalyst through coking of catalyst surfaces. In order to
comply with Phase 3 regulations at engine full useful life, it is expected that manufacturers will eliminate the use of
manual chokes and switch to the use of either automatic chokes or priming  bulbs. This has largely occurred already
with Phase 2 Class I engines.

    a.   Fuel system degradation:  This would  be an emissions compliance issue, but would not result in any
        difference in safety for Phase 3 equipment relative to existing Phase 1 and Phase 2 equipment.

    b.   Faulty or misapplied choke:   The resulting overly-rich air-to-fuel ratios pose an emissions compliance
        issue by increasing engine-wear and engine-out emission degradation over time, and by reducing catalyst
        efficiency by  partial deactivation of the catalyst through the coking of catalyst surfaces, but would not
        result  in any differences in  safety for Phase  3 equipment relative  to existing Phase 1 and Phase 2
        equipment. In order to comply  with  Phase 3 regulations at engine full useful life, it is expected that
        manufactures will eliminate the use of manual chokes and switch to the use of either automatic chokes or
        priming bulbs. This has largely occurred already with Phase 2 Class I engines.

    c.   Ignition system failure:  Ignition system failure is not related to rich operation. As such, it is covered
        separately under scenario 6.

    d.   Air filter element mal-maintenance: The impact of air-filter mal-maintenance on emissions  and air-to-fuel
        ratio has been significantly reduced since the advent of the  Phase 2 emission standards. The majority of
        carburetors used with Phase 2 engines are equipped with float bowl venting that provides compensation for
        a degree air-filter mal-maintenance.   Thus changes in carburetor air-inlet restriction are already largely
        compensated for by  design. Extreme blockage of the air filter element resulting in rich operation would
        increase exhaust emissions, but based on EPA test results would  not result in any difference  in safety for
        Phase 3 equipment relative to existing  Phase 1 and Phase 2 equipment.
                                                                                                       142

-------
    e.  Debris blocks catalyst venturi:  The impact of debris blockage of catalyst venturi would be increased
        emissions and reduced heat rejection at some conditions.  While this would pose an emissions compliance
        issue, EPA would not expect any safety-related impact from venturi air-inlet blockage.  The venturi of the
        European catalyst-muffler design (figure 5-1) is located in a low-debris area in its OEM application.  The
        venturi inlet was similarly located in low debris locations in EPA's applications of this basic design to two
        different engine families used with four of the engines in the field operations  in southwest Tennessee
        (engines 244, 245, 246, and 248).  These systems were operated to near the end of useful life and none
        experienced any significant degree of venturi blockage.

Conclusions Based on FMEA of Rich Operation

Rich operation was identified as a potential safety concern by one organization. Within  the Class 1 and Class II
design FMEAs there were only  five situations identified where  a rich mixture could  potentially create a safety
problem.  In each case, the potential  effect of  the failure was  backfire.   To some  degree these problems are
redundant with misfire as discussed above. Rich operation can lead  to other potential failure effects such  hard
starting, general  degradation of performance, or emissions increases but in no other scenario was there a potential
safety issue identified.

Table 8-7: Backfire Safety FMEA Summary - Incremental Change from Phase 2 to Phase 3
FMEA Type


Design
Class I:
Class II:
Number of Items with Backfire
Potential Failure Mode

Number with
Potential
Improvement
Number
with No
Change
Number with Potential
Degradation


2
3
2 '
1
0
2
0
0
1  American Petroleum Institute, "Ignition Risk of Hydrocarbon Vapors by Hot Surfaces in Open Air", Table 3:
Open Air Ignition Tests Under Normal Wind and Convection Current Conditions, API Publication #2216, January
1991.
                                                                                                      143

-------
9.  Safety Analysis  of Small  SI  Engine  Evaporative Emissions Control
Technologies

A.      CURRENT TECHNOLOGY

Fuel Evaporative Emissions

EPA intends to  propose standards for evaporative emission control requirements for NHH and HH equipment.
Evaporative emissions refer to gasoline vapor tost to the atmosphere from a number of mechanisms including:

    1.   permeation:  These emissions occur when fuel vapor works its way through the material used in the fuel
        system. Permeation occurs most commonly through plastic fuel tanks and rubber fuel hoses.

    2,   diurnal: These emissions result from temperature changes throughout the day. As the day gets warmer, the
        fuel temperature increases and the fuel evaporates into the atmosphere.  This is sometimes referred to as
        breathing losses.

    3,   diffusion:  These emissions result from vapor exiting through a vent path to the atmosphere regardless of
        changes in temperature. This  occurs due to the vapor concentration gradient between vapor in the tank or
        hose and the outside atmosphere.

    4.   running loss: These emissions are similar to diurnal emissions except that the heating of the fuel is caused
        by engine operation.

    5.   refueling:  These emissions occur when vapors displaced from the fuel tank  escape when fuel is dispensed
        into the tank.

    6.   hot  soak:  These emissions occur from hot  fuel cooling after engine shutdown. Traditionally they can
        emanate from the fuel tank or  the carburetor.
  «
    7.   spillage: These emissions occur when fuel is spilled by the user during refueling events.
                               /
The following sections describe the current technological designs for NHH and HH equipment that will be impacted
by the potential Phase 3 evaporative emissions standards.

NHH Equipment

NHH  equipment refers generally to gasoline-powered equipment that does not require operator support for its
operation. It can be free standing, such as a pressure washer or generator, or wheel-based, such as a walk-behind
lawnmower,  a ride-on mower, or a cultivator. We are considering fuel tank and fiiel hose permeation standards,
diffusion, and running loss control requirements for NHH equipment.

Fuel tanks for NHH equipment are often  mounted on or near the engine.  Due to the small size of the tanks and
equipment, and to  aid in stability in typical Class I applications, the fuel tanks are often mounted directly on the
engines.  Tank volumes are normally < 0.5 gallon  and are made of either metal  or high density polyethylene
(HOPE). Class I applications normally have only one fuel tank. For Class II equipment, it is more common for fuel
tanks to be mounted near the engine on the chassis as  opposed to directly on the engine. For example, some ride-on
mowers mount the fuel tank in  the engine compartment.  For equipment with rear-mounted engines  it is not
uncommon to have the fuel tank in the rear as well.  Tank volumes are normally > 1.5 gallons and it is common to
have two higher capacity (> 5 gallon) dual  tanks on larger commercial equipment.  Class II equipment tanks are
normally made of injection or blow-molded HDPE or  rotomolded cross link polyethylene (XLPE).
                                                                                                144

-------
Generally, the fuel systems on Class I and Class II equipment have no rollover valves or other mechanisms to
prevent fuel from spilling on the engine or equipment when the  equipment is tipped on its side or turned over.
Some tanks use tortuous venting paths in the fuel caps, which also restrict fuel flow, but others simply use holes in
the fuel caps for venting which would also allow fuel to spill out of the tanks at higher flow rates.  Fuel tank caps
are primarily made of plastic and typically do not have a tether to prevent loss of the cap. Running loss emissions
from fuel tank heating during operation are typically vented through the fuel cap.

NHH equipment uses a variety of fuel hose constructions. They may be extruded rubber hose meeting SAE J30R7
requirements or they may use a multi-layer hose such as would meet SAE J30R9. Typical materials used are nitrile
rubber, and in some cases, fluoroelastomers.

HH Equipment

HH equipment refers generally to gasoline-powered tools that are supported by the user during operation.  This
category includes chainsaws, string trimmers, leaf blowers, and other similar equipment.  EPA is considering fuel
hose and fuel tank permeation standards and diffusion control requirements for HH equipment.

Fuel tanks on HH equipment are typically molded out of either nylon or polyethylene. Most of these tanks are < 0.5
gallons in capacity and in some cases much less. With some equipment, instead of a tank being attached as part of
the overall equipment assembly, the fuel tank is structurally integrated into the body of the equipment. This design
approach is used in common applications such as chainsaws, hedge trimmers, and brush cutters. This construction
helps to provide structural strength to the equipment and results  in the fuel tank being molded out of the same
material as the rest of the body.  In these cases,  nylon is typically used due to the favorable heat resistance and
stiffness characteristics it offers. The fuel tanks used in HH equipment may either be vented to the atmosphere or
they may be sealed.  Manufacturers often seal the fuel tanks to  prevent spillage during use.  This is especially
common on tools such as chainsaws where the equipment is regularly turned over during normal use.

HH equipment uses a variety of fuel hose constructions.  They may be extruded rubber hose or may be molded into
custom forms.  Typical  materials used are nitrile rubber,  polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride,  and in some cases,
fluoroelastomers. According to the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, the vast majority of HH equipment has
total fuel hose lengths of less than IS cm.

B. CURRENT SAFETY STANDARDS

The current safety standards for NHH equipment are discussed in Chapter 3. At this point there are no mandatory or
general industry consensus standards related to safety practices or standards  for fuel tanks or fuel hoses used in
NHH or HH equipment.  One exception to this is UL 1602 which does present guidelines for the construction of
gasoline-powered edgers.

Although industry wide standards are not used, extensive product  qualification and durability testing is  performed.
According to industry sources, manufacturers typically soak tanks at an elevated temperature on various fiiels to test
for fuel compatibility.  In addition, most manufacturers perform impact tests on their fuel tanks. Impact tests vary
by manufacturer and can be performed using drop testing, pendulum swung hammers, or sharp point impact. Other
procedures that manufacturers have stated that they use for evaluating fuel tank durability include pressure tests and
vibration tests.
Most NHH equipment use hose meeting SAE J30 R7 standards.  As discussed below, these standards include a long
list of durability tests. One engine and equipment manufacturer that does not use hose labeled as SAE J30 R7 stated
that they use similar pliability and,durability tests as are in the SAE recommended practice. In addition, they test for
abrasion resistance and the minimum load required for pulling the hose off of a fitting.  They stated that they use the
hose pull of load specified in  ANSI B71.3.  Although this standard is intended for snow throwers, the pull  off
requirement can be applied to other applications.
                                                                                                     145

-------
HH equipment manufacturers typically use fuel hoses made of polyurethane, nitrile rubber, or polyvinyl chloride.
For edgers,-the hose must meet a number of durability requirements according to UL 1602.  These durability
requirements  include ultraviolet light exposure, dry heat aging, fuel  resistance, and low temperature flexibility.
Industry sources have stated that they also perform heat resistance testing and pull off testing on this hose and use
the same fuel hose for the rest of their equipment.  HH equipment manufacturers  also use molded nitrile or
fluoroelastomer hoses on some of their equipment.  Industry sources stated that they perform a number of durability
tests on.these hoses as well which include  fuel  resistance,  a pull off load  requirement, heat resistance, cold
temperature flexibility, and vibration resistance.

ASTM also provides guidance for hose durability testing.  ASTM Dl 149 provides test procedures for determining
cracking in the hose that may occur from ozone exposure. ASTM D471 describes test procedures for determining
the resistance of rubber products to a number of test fuels. ASTM D380 references these test methods and describes
several additional durability tests for fuel hose. These additional tests include tensile strength, elongation, adhesion,
pressure tests, low temperature exposure, tension, and hot air aging.  One equipment manufacturer specifically
stated that they use these test procedures. In addition, all of these ASTM test methods are referenced in SAE J30.

In addition  to the above testing, manufacturers often operate the equipment in the field for extended periods of time
to evaluate durability.   Among other things, these evaluations  give manufacturers  the ability to evaluate the
performance of the fuel tanks, hose, and connections.   The use of these durability tests can affect safety in that
manufacturers are able to look for defects that may lead  to fuel leaks in the field.

Industry sources have also stated  that they  test for fuel overflow on their NHH equipment.  These sources have
referenced  ANSI  standards B17.1 for  lawnmowers, B17.3 for snow throwers, and  B17.4  for commercial turf
equipment.  These standards basically require that there be a shield or other method to prevent any fuel  overfill
during refueling from spilling onto an ignition source such as the muffler or non-insulated electrical wire.


C. IN-USE SAFETY EXPERIENCE

As discussed in earlier chapters, assessing incremental risk requires an understanding  of the problems and in-use
safety experience with current products.  For this analysis we used data from CPSC's website regarding NHH and
HH  equipment.  The  CPSC  website  publishes  Recalls and Product Safety News, where  manufacturers, in
cooperation with CPSC, voluntarily recall products that  pose a safety hazard to consumers. Recall notices published
during the period of January 2000 to December 2004 were reviewed. Our analysis focused only on incidences that
were relevant to the fuel systems that may be affected by potential Phase 3 emission standards.

NHH Equipment

The  in-use safety discussion for NHH equipment in  Chapter 3  includes issues related to potential evaporative
emission control technology.  During the period of January 2000 to December 2004, there were a total of 22 lawn
mowers or  lawn mower engines recalls due to  safety issues related to thermal burn injuries.  These 22 recall notices
affected approximately  850,000 lawn mower units.  In the same time period, CPSC reported 11 recalls for fuel tank
leaks and five recalls for fuel line leaks.  Chapter 3 presents CPSC Injury/Potential Injury Incident File  and In-
Depth Investigations related to' lawn mower fuel leak incidents.

HH Equipment

In reviewing  the CPSC Recall website, EPA reviewed recalls related to gasoline-powered HH equipment  such as
blowers, trimmers, edgers, chainsaws, augers, and brush cutters.  From 2000  to 2004, EPA identified 11 recalls
categorized as fire/burn hazards.  Of these  11  recall actions, three  were associated with potential fuel leakage from
hoses, seven were  associated with potential fuel leakage from tanks, and one was related to flames in the engine
exhaust.  These 11 recall actions included more than 80 percent of the HH equipment recalled in that time period.

EPA recognizes that a list of voluntary recalls does not provide details on injuries associated with fires and bums.
However, as  shown with NHH equipment in Chapter  3, recall notices do provide  a good indication of what the
                                                                                                     146

-------
safety issues are for a given class of equipment. Based on this, our analysis of incremental risk should focus on fire
and burn hazards related to fuel leaks and spills arising from the use of technology to control fuel hose or fuel tank
permeation emissions.

D. EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN AND SAFETY

NHH Equipment

We are considering evaporative emission standards for Small  SI engines in the Class I and Class II subcategories.
These standards include the control of the permeation of fuel vapors through nonmetallic fuel system components,
such as rubber fuel hoses and plastic fuel tanks, and the control of fuel vapor vented out of the fuel system. This
section discusses the various evaporative emission control approaches under consideration and what impacts these
control strategies may have on safety. When evaluating potential safety impacts of evaporative emission control, we
considered primarily the chance of a fuel  hose or fuel  tank liquid leak or a combustible fuel vapor reaching an
ignition source, such as a hot exhaust system, when the engine  is in use.  Thus component durability is a key issue.

Fuel hoses

Most NHH equipment uses rubber hose  for delivering gasoline from the fuel tank to the engine. The typical fuel
hose construction is a nitrile rubber hose with a protective cover for abrasion resistance.  To meet the fuel hose
permeation standards under consideration, manufacturers would be able to use this hose construction except that an
additional barrier layer would need to be added to minimize permeation fuel  through the hose material.  A typical
barrier material would  likely be a fluoroelastomer or fluoroplastic material.  Barrier hose constructions are used
widely in automotive applications and even on some Class II engines.  The lines used today typically meet SAE and
ASTM standards; in most cases fuel hose meeting the SAE J30R7 is used. In addition, manufacturers commonly
specify minimum  loads  to pull their  fuel hose  off of  the  connecting  barbs.   One  example of a  published
recommended minimum pull offload is 10 Ibs specified in ANSI B71.3.

Fuel hose under the SAE J30 R7 rating must pass a number of tests designed to measure the durability of the hose.
These  tests include a burst pressure, tensile  strength and elongation, dry heat resistance, oil resistance, ozone
resistance, kink resistance, and several fuel exposure tests. The fuel resistance tests include repeating most of the
above tests after soaking the hose with both ASTM fuel Cf and a test  fuel made up of 85 percent ASTM fuel D
blended with 15 percent ethanol. In addition, to test for "sour  fuel" resistance, the hose is tested for tensile strength
and elongation after being exposed to a test fuel made up of ASTM Fuel B and sufficient t-butyl hydroperoxide to
achieve a specified peroxide level. Finally, the hose is tested for permeation on ASTM fuel C. In addition, the SAE
requirements include an adhesion test which sets a minimum load required to separate the tube from the protective
cover

EPA's fuel hose permeation requirements must be met using EPA test procedures. However, past testing indicates
that  many hoses meeting the SAE J30 R9, Rl 1 A, or R12 requirements will meet  EPA permeation requirements.
Hoses meeting R9  or better specifications would also have to meet all other durability requirements associated with
the SAE  J30 standard as described in the preceding paragraph.  Barrier hoses constructed today are generally higher
quality hose that also have better temperature resistance than non-barrier hose. For instance, SAE J30 R9 hose must
meet a dry heat resistance test based on I50°C heat aging compared to  125°C for R7 hose.  According to one hose
manufacturer, heat resistance is primarily a function of the cover material rather than the permeation barrier material
itself. This should directionally address current concerns related to fuel lines droping under radiant load.

Furthermore, the barrier  materials are made of rubber compounds that are resistant to permeation by gasoline,
including ethanol blends  and oxidized ("sour") gasoline.  This fuel resistance not only protects against chemical
attack, but also limits swelling due to the permeation of fuel.  By limiting the swelling and contracting (drying)
cycles  and chemical attacks that may cause the hose to become brittle, the hose may resist cracking as well.  Finally,
the barrier layers are thin and are not expected to lead to any significant differences in hose flexibility or ability to
retain connections within the fuel system.  Based on the rigorous nature of the SAE testing requirements and the
'These ASTM fuels are blends of isooctane/toluene: B=70%/30%, C=50%/50%, D=60%/40%.
                                                                                                     147

-------
essentially universal use of hoses meeting SAE specification in NHH applications, we expect no increase in fuel
hose leaks associated with the use of low permeation fuel hose relative to current fuel hose.  The hose which would
be used is commercially available today.

Fuel tanks

Fuel tanks on NHH  equipment are usually constructed of HDPE through a blow molding or injection molding
process. There are still a few models, some with very high sales, using metal tanks.  Some of the larger NHH
equipment, such as commercial turf care equipment, uses fuel tanks constructed of XLPE.  XLPE is thermoset
which means that that a reaction takes place in the plastic during molding (at an engineered temperature) which
creates the cross-link structure.  HDPE and XLPE have poor fuel permeation resistance characteristics while metal
tanks do not permeate.  There are several technological approaches that can be used to reduce gasoline permeation
through plastic fuel tanks (HDPE and XLPE).  These approaches include surface treatments, barrier constructions,
and alternative materials.

Surface treatments, such as fluorination and sulfonation, could be used to meet the standard that EPA is considering.
These treatments are performed as a secondary step after the fuel tank is molded; both create a thin layer on the
inner or outer surfaces of the fuel tank that acts as a barrier to permeation.  In fluorination, a barrier is created on
both the inner and outer surfaces while in sulfonation, it is created only on'the inner surface. These treatments do
not materially change the construction of the fuel tank and are not expected to affect the durability of the fuel tanks
because the barrier is not thicker than 20 microns thick and does not affect the tank wall material which is typically
3-6 mm thick.  These approaches are both used to meet the current  California gasoline permeation  standards for
portable fuel cans.

Multi-layer fuel tank constructions which create a barrier to permeation have been used in automotive applications
for many years. The most common approach is to mold a thin layer of ethyl vinyl alcohol (EVOH) inside a HDPE
shell.  This approach is commonly used in high production volume,  blow-molded fuel tanks but could be used in
lower production volumes through a molding process known as thermoforming.  Another approach available for
blow-molded fuel tanks is to blend a small amount of EVOH directly into the HDPE. During molding, the EVOH
creates non-continuous overlapping barrier platelets which restrict permeation. For each of these technologies, the
barrier material is only a small percentage of the total makeup of the fuel tank.  In addition, adhesion layers are used
between the barrier and the HDPE shell to prevent the layers from pulling apart.  These technologies have the
advantage of having been in use for many years and having been demonstrated in automotive and other applications
with no safety issues.  Automotive manufacturers require the fuel tanks to meet wide range of durability tests on
these fuel tanks including fuel exposure, flame tests, and low temperature drop impact tests.

Rotationally molded XLPE  tanks would  use one of several techniques to reduce permeation. In the first technique
nylon, which has good permeability properties, is applied  as an inner shell inside the fuel tank. The manufacturer
has demonstrated that the nylon has an excellent bond with the XLPE.'  As a result of this bond and the strength of
the nylon, this construction offers strong resistance to impact.  Testing at Imanna Laboratory, Inc. showed that a
tank of this construction met the United States Coast Guard (USCG) durability requirements described in chapter 10
which include impact testing and flame resistance.2 Another new approach for XLPE tanks is to coat the tank with
a low permeation epoxy  in a secondary step after molding.  This approach does not change the basic fuel tank
construction but only adds  an outer layer similar in thickness as a coat of paint. A third approach for reducing
permeation would be  to rotomold the fuel tanks out of lower permeation  materials such as nylons,  acetal
copolymers, or thermoplastic polyesters.  Materials  manufacturers have been working for years on engineered
plastics that are compatible with the molding processes and design requirements of today's fuel tanks.

In the case where  manufacturers make any changes to their fuel tanks, such as materials or geometry, they must
evaluate the effect of these changes on their product.  There are no  standard procedures for evaluating the safety
characteristics of  these  fuel tanks.  Each  vendor or manufacturer has   developed their own tests  to ensure
performance.  Examples of these  durability tests include impact testing,  temperature  testing, and fuel exposure
testing. It should be  noted that EPA's permeation test procedures (contained in 40 CFR 1051.515) incorporate test
requirements which will help to ensure the in-use integrity of these tanks.   Current requirements include extended
time of fuel soak in  a 10 percent ethanol/gasoline blend, slosh testing, pressure-vacuum cycling, and prolonged
                                                                                                      148

-------
exposure to ultraviolet light. Because there are not set industry standards for durability testing of fuel tanks, it may
be helpful to consider additional tests which could address emissions durability such as high and low temperature
cycling.

In none of these three  approaches (surface treatment, barrier construction, and alternative materials) would EPA
expect there to be an adverse incremental impact on safety. Surface treatments and barrier construction are used in
portable and installed fuel tanks today.  The choice of proper  materials and construction durability is important and
we believe that the manufacturer specific test procedures and production audits and EPA requirements are sufficient
to ensure that there will be no increase in the types of fuel leaks that lead to fire and burn risk in use. There is also
the potential for  at  least a directional improvement in safety in  Phase 3 standards associated with reducing
permeation of fuel vapor from the equipment in a closed space such as a shed or garage.

Running Loss

We are also considering several approaches to reducing the evaporative emissions associated with direct venting of
fuel  vapors from the fuel  tank.  We focus primarily on running loss venting emissions.  When equipment is
operating, the ftiel is heated by the engine, the exhaust system, and possibly the hydraulic system.  We are
considering two primary approaches to controlling running loss venting emissions.

First, the equipment could be designed to  minimize heat reaching the fuel tank. This  could be achieved through
heat shielding, changing from metal to plastic tanks, or by relocating the  fuel tank further from heat sources. In the
case of Class I equipment, the fuel tank could be moved away from the muffler to the opposite side of the engine
block". On Class I!  equipment, there would be more room  on the  equipment to move the tank away from heat
sources  such as the engine or exhaust system.  Overall, EPA  expects this would be the preferred approach since it
would be the least expensive way to comply with the test procedures and emissions standards under consideration.
If the fuel tank is moved away from heat sources, the likelihood of fuel spilling on a hot surface during refueling
would also be reduced.  Heat shielding and changing tank  material would  also reduce heat getting to the fuel.
Changing from metal to plastic tanks where practical would also substantially reduce running loss emissions and the
overall hot surface area.

The  second approach to controlling running loss emissions would  be to route the vapor to the engine intake to be
burned by the engine.  A restriction would need to be  placed in the vent line to the engine to keep  the engine
manifold vacuum  from drawing too much vapor  from the fuel tank.  This restriction could be in the form of a
limited  flow orifice  or a valve.  This  would have the additional  benefit of acting as a rollover valve since the
limiting orifice or valve restricting vapor flow would inhibit fuel flow from the tank if the equipment was inverted.
Even without moving the fuel tank,  the equipment could  be designed to prevent fuel spillage during refueling from
reaching hot surfaces that could ignite the fuel.  As discussed above, some manufacturers design their equipment to
prevent fuel overfill from reaching these hot surfaces consistent with ANSI B71.1, B71.3, and B7I.4.

To control diffusion-related venting emissions, manufacturers could make  use of fuel caps with no venting or with
venting  through a tortuous path.  These caps, which are used in some applications today, would reduce fuel  spillage
when the  equipment is turned over or even due to sloshing in the fuel tank. The chance of a fuel cap being lost
could be reduced with a tether which could reduce the chance  of fuel spillage due to open or improperly plugged fill
necks. We would expect to accomplish this type of control as  part of our running loss  control requirements.

Conclusion

NHH equipment is capable of achieving reductions in fuel tank permeation, fuel hose permeation, and fuel tank
vapor venting emissions without an adverse incremental impact on safety.

For  fuel hoses and fuel tanks the applicable consensus standards,  manufacturer specific test procedures and EPA
requirements are sufficient to ensure that there will be no  increase in the types of fuel leaks that lead to fire and burn
risk  in use. The running loss control program being considered by EPA will create requirements that will reduce risk
of fire in use. Moving fuel tanks away from heat sources, improving cap designs to  limit  leakage on tip over, and
                                                                                                      149

-------
requiring a tethered cap will all help to eliminate conditions which lead to in-use problems related to fuel leaks and
spillage.

Furthermore, reductions in permeation emissions and the techniques for reducing running loss emissions are likely
to have a salutary impact on the overall safety  of NHH systems. The evaporative emission standards under
consideration would  lead to significant  reductions in fuel vapor emitted to the atmosphere.  This is especially
important in closed spaces because evaporative emissions occur regardless of whether the equipment is operated
(i.e. a piece of equipment stored in a shed with fuel in the tank continues to permeate and vent fuel vapor into the
shed); such controls could prevent vapor concentrations in closed spaces from becoming high enough for the vapor
to reach  a  flammable mixture.   Exposing the fuel  tank to less  heat may also reduce  post shutdown hot soak
emissions from the tank.

HH Equipment

We are considering fuel hose and fuel tank permeation emission standards for HH equipment.  The standards and
test procedures would be similar to those  discussed above for NHH engines.

Fuel Hose

For the most part there are no significant differences in the fuel hose related safety issues for NHH and HH engines
and equipment. Although somewhat different constructions are used today, manufacturers perform many durability
tests on HH hose as well.  These tests are described above. HH equipment manufacturers can make use of the same
low permeation hose  materials and constructions described above for NHH equipment. These low permeation hose
constructions use a fluoroelastomer or fluoroplastic material as a barrier. Alternatively, the entire fuel hose could be
molded from a fluoroelastomer.

In some  applications, molded fuel hoses are used rather than simple extruded fuel hose.  These  fuel hoses are
typically either  molded  out of  nitrile  rubber or a fluoroelastomer.   Fluoroelastomers  are  essentially rubber
impregnated with fluorine which  results in good fuel permeation resistance. Manufacturers of equipment that may
be used in cold weather have stated that they must use  nitrile rubber because the fluorelastomer material  may
become brittle at very low temperatures.  While they have presented data supporting this claim, it was based on a
fluoroelastomer without a low temperature additive package. Fluoroelastomers used in automotive applications use
low temperature additive  packages and are designed for strength at temperatures as low as -40°C.  In addition, at
least one snowmobile manufacturer has recently begun using a low temperature fluoroelastomer for its fuel system
seals. Fuel hose meeting SAE and ASTM standards is available today which meets a widespread set of safety and
durability requirements.

Manufacturers have claimed that barrier hoses are stiffer and may not hold on to hose connections as well as nitrile
rubber hose. The barriers used in low permeation hose are thin and, in our evaluation, barrier hose is not noticeably
different in stiffness than  nitrile hose and fits well over typical  hose barbs used today.  If a manufacturer felt it was
necessary, there is a wide range of fuel hose clamps available today.

Manufacturers have indicated that they would perform durability testing on any new hose constructions they, were to
use.   These tests are described  above.  In addition, manufacturers have stated that they would test the low
permeation hose on their equipment under field testing.  Based on these practices and the properties of the low
permeation materials discussed above, the low permeation fuel hose requirements being considered by EPA would
not lead to an increase in fuel leaks or risk of fire or burn in use.

Fuel Tanks

Most fuel tanks on HH  equipment are  made of HOPE.   EPA expects emission reductions would be achieved
through the surface treatments or barrier technologies identified for NHH equipment and that the in-use safety
experience would be simitar.  The surface treatments described above were fluorination and sulfonation.  The
barrier treatments described above included a thin EVOH  barrier layer within a HOPE shell and  non-continuous
barrier platelets created by blending the  EVOH into  the HOPE prior to molding. As discussed above, the surface
                                                                                                     150

-------
treatments do not change the construction of the fuel tank but only put a microscopic barrier on the outer surface.
The barrier technologies only make up a small fraction of the total material of the fuel tank and have been long
demonstrated in automotive and other applications.

Manufacturers of equipment with structurally integrated fuel tanks have stated that they must use nylon because of
its structural  qualities.  An additional advantage of nylon is that it has lower permeation rates than  HOPE.
However, on  test fuel containing ethanol, the permeation rate through nylon fuel tanks is stil! slightly higher than
the permeation  standard  under consideration.   Under the  program we are  considering,  EPA  expects  that
manufacturers using nylon in their structurally integrated tanks will be able to continue to do so. Thus, EPA  expects
there will be no change and thus no increase in risk.

Conclusion

HH equipment is capable of achieving reductions in fuel tank permeation and fuel hose permeation without an
adverse  incremental impact on safety.  For fuel  hoses and fuel tanks the applicable consensus standards,
manufacturer specific test procedures and EPA requirements are sufficient to ensure that there will be no increase in
the types of fuel  leaks that lead to fire and burn risk in use. The evaporative emission standards under consideration
would lead to significant reductions in fuel vapor emitted to the atmosphere. This is especially important in closed
spaces because evaporative emissions  occur regardless of whether the equipment is operated; such controls could
prevent vapor concentrations in closed spaces from becoming high enough for the vapor to reach a flammable
mixture.

E. CONCLUSION

EPA has reviewed the fuel hose and fuel tank characteristics for NHH and HH equipment and evaluated control
technology which could  be used to reduce evaporative emissions from these two subcategories. This equipment is
capable of achieving reductions in  fuel tank and fuel hose permeation without an adverse incremental impact on
safety. For fuel hoses and fuel tanks, the applicable consensus standards, manufacturer specific test procedures and
EPA requirements are sufficient to ensure that there will be no increase in the types of fuel leaks that lead to  fire and
burn risk in use.  Instead, these standards will reduce vapor emissions both during operation and in storage.  That
reduction, coupled with some expected equipment redesign, is expected to lead to reductions in the risk of fire or
burn without  affecting component durability. Additionally, the running loss control program being considered by
EPA for NHH equipment will  lead to changes that are expected to reduce risk of fire in use.  Moving fuel tanks
away  from heat  sources, improving  cap designs  to limit leakage on tip over, and requiring a tethered cap will all
help to eliminate conditions which  lead to in-use problems related to fuel leaks and spillage.   Therefore, EPA
believes that  the application of emission control technology to reduce evaporative emissions  from these  two
subcategories will not lead to an increase in incremental risk of fires or burns and in some cases is likely to at least
directionally reduce such risks.
1  O'Brien, G.,  Partridge, R., Clay, B., "New  Materials and Multi-Layer Rotomolding Technology for Higher
Barrier Performance Rotomolded Tanks," Atofina Chemicals, 2004, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0044,
2 Partridge, R., "Petro-Seal for Ultra-low Fuel Permeation; Evaporative EPA Emissions from Boat Fuel Systems,"
Arkema, Presentation at the 2004 International Boatbuilders' Exhibition and Conference, October 25,2004, Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0252.
                                                                                                     151

-------
10. Safety Analysis for Marine SI

This section gives an overview of Marine SI engines and vessels that may  be impacted by further exhaust and
evaporative emission control requirements. It also provides the technical basis and analysis for our assessment of
the incremental impact on safety of potential marine SI exhaust and fuel evaporative emission standards

A. CURRENT TECHNOLOGY
Marine Engines

Marine SI engines are typically grouped into the following categories:

    1.   Outboards (OBI.  These are engines mounted  on the  stern of a boat  with the entire engine and drive
        assembly external to the hull. Outboards range in power from less than 2 horsepower (hp) to more than
        250 hp.  More than half of the outboards sold in the US are less than 50 hp.

    2.   Personal watercraft (PWO.  These vessels are  generally intended for  1-3 riders where the riders sit (or
        stand) on top of the vessel with their legs straddling it.  Examples of PWC include Jet skis, Wave runners
        and Sea Doo watercraft. Traditional PWC sold today are all above 50 hp, but some lower power specialty
        applications, such as motorized surfboards, fall into this category as well.

    3.   Sterndrives and Inboards  CSP/D.   These engines  are  typically built  by adding marine components to
        automotive engine blocks  and range in power from about 130 hp to more than 1000 hp.  A stem drive
        engine (also known as an inboard/outboard) is mounted in the stern of the boat and has a direct drive
        through the hull similar to an outboard drive. An inboard engine is generally mounted in the center or rear
        of the vessel and the engine is linked to the propeller by a drive shaft.

    4.   Marine auxiliary engines.  These are small engines used on boats for auxiliary power. Although they are
        currently categorized  as Class I NHH engines (and in some  cases Class II  NHH engines), they have
        features that are unique to marine applications.  Specifically, they make use of their environment to water-
      '  cool the engine and water-jacket the exhaust.

This study focuses on engines less than 50 hp.  For this reason we only include OB, PWC, and marine generator sets
in the following discussion.

To meet existing emission standards, OB and PWC manufacturers are converting much of their product mix from
traditional crankcase scavenged carbureted two-stroke engines to either four-stroke engines or two-stroke direct
injection engines.  Smaller four-stroke engines (<25  hp) are anticipated to continue to use carburetion; however,
electronic fuel injection is becoming popular on larger engines.

PWCs have a fuel tank  integrated  into the vessel/engine structure and all is sold as a unit. OB engines are self
contained power units but typically do not have an attached fuel tank.  Either a portable fuel tank is used with the
engine (mostly for smaller engines) or the engine is connected to a fuel tank  in the  vessel that is permanently
installed by the boat builder.

As stated above, engines used in marine generator sets are water cooled with water-jacketed exhaust.  The purpose
of the water-jacketing is to maintain low surface temperatures to minimize exhaust system temperatures. These
engines  are often packaged in small compartments on boats and  could overheat if they relied solely on ambient air
for the  cooling  system.  Two engine  manufacturers currently  dominate  this niche market.   Recently, both
manufacturers have introduced models with electronic fuel injection and catalysts in the exhaust system  and have
stated their intentions to convert to catalyzed engines in the near future. Catalyst technology has been driven by the
desire to reduce  carbon monoxide emissions.  Known carbon monoxide poisonings have been disproportionately
high among boats with generators compared to other vessels.
                                                                                                    152

-------
Marine Vessel Fuel Systems

The marine vessels under consideration here include those powered by OB and PWC engines. The marine industry
has both mandatory and voluntary standards for boat construction (discussed below) which include requirements for
fuel system components such as fuel hoses and fuel tanks.

Vessels powered with OB engines use both portable and installed tanks. Portable marine fuel tanks, which are used
primarily with small  OB engines, are normally 5-6 gallons. They are normally designed of blow-molded HDPE.
They are designed with a quick connect fitting for the fuel hose which closes and seals the system when not in use.
Outboard vessels  with installed fuel tanks primarily use roto-molded XLPE fuel tanks.  However,  fuel tanks made
of aluminum or fiberglass are also used, primarily on larger vessels. These tanks range in capacity  from 12 gallons
to well over 100 gallons.  Outboard vessels with installed tanks generally follow the recommended industry practice
of venting the fuel tank though a hose which extends to the outside  of the hull.  Thus diurnal emissions are
uncontrolled.

Fuel tanks used on PWC are installed by the vessel manufacturer.  They range in size from 4*18 gallons and are
usually constructed of blow-molded HDPE. Fuel tanks on PWC are sealed with pressure relief valves so there are
low diurnal emissions. The purpose of sealing the fuel tank is to prevent fuel spillage into the water during use.

Fuel hoses include those carrying liquid fuel as well as those carrying fuel vapor, OB engines employ fuel hoses on
the engine and come with a fuel hose to be connected to the portable or the installed fuel tank. For those OB engines
with installed  fuel tanks, there is a fuel fill hose through which gasoline enters the fuel tank and another smaller
diameter hose  used to vent the fuel tank. Fuel hose is generally constructed of polyvinyl chloride  or nitrile rubber
with an abrasion-resistant cover and often a braid or wire reinforcement.  The fuel, vent, and fill neck hoses can
range from only a few feet  in length to dozens of feet in length depending on the size of the vessel, the location of
the fuel tank and engine, and the location of the tank vents and fill caps. For  portable fuel tanks, the hose is
generally about 6 feet in length and includes quick connections at both ends and a rubber primer bulb in the middle.
Portable fuel tanks vent through a fuel cap mounted directly on the fuel tank so there is no vent hose.

PWC come with a fully installed fuel system. The fuel hoses include those used to route fuel to the engine as well as
those used to draw fuel from the installed fuel tank. These tanks are normally top fill so there is no appreciable fuel
fill neck involved.

B. IN-USE SAFETY EXPERIENCE

As discussed in earlier chapters, assessing incremental risk requires an  understanding of the problems and in-use
safety experience with current products. For this analysis we used data available on the USCG website for marine
vessels.  Presented below are incidences that are relevant to the engine/equipment subsystems that  may be affected
by our emission standards.
                                                                                                   !

Marine Engines and Vessels

The  USCG website  (www.uscgboating.org)  includes  boating statistics  developed  from the recreational  boat
numbering and casualty reporting systems.  The most recent publication on these statistics is "Boating Statistics —
2004" which includes a five year summary of boating accidents. The table 10-1 presents boating accidents related
to fuel fires.
                                                                                                      153

-------
                      Table10-1: Coast Guard Five Year Summary of Fuel Related Fires
Type of Accident
Fire or Explosion of Fuel
Year
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
Incidences
162
142
160
153
183
Fatalities
4
7
4
2
2
Injuries
158
68
82
73
93
The above statistics only include incidences that are reported to USCG under 33  CFR 173.55.   Because this
regulation  places minimum thresholds  on property damage  or  treatment  requirements,  incidences  may go
unreported. Additionally, the USCG report does not provide any more detail on the causes of the fuel related fires.
Even  looking into the incidence reports, details are not generally given on the source of the fuel or fuel vapor
leading to the fire or explosion.  In many of the incidence reports the operator stated that they had just started their
engine when the fire started.  Recommended  practice is to run a blower to remove fuel vapor from the engine
compartment prior to starting the engine.  The purpose of this is to remove fuel vapor that could be a fire hazard.
This fuel vapor may come from  fuel  spillage, leaks in the fuel system, and/or permeation through plastic tanks and
rubber hoses.

C. CURRENT SAFETY STANDARDS

The marine industry is regulated for safety primarily by USCG. In addition,  USCG standards are supplemented by
voluntary standards created by the American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) Reference is also made to SAE and
Underwriters Laboratories tests and standards.  These standards cover a wide range of boating safety issues which
include engine installations and fuel system requirements. All of the technologies being considered for controlling
exhaust and evaporative emissions from marine engines are covered by these safety requirements. These include:

        33 CFR 183 Subparts J and K
        ABYC H-2, H-24, H-25, P-1, and TH-23 .
        UL 1102 and 1185
        SAEJ1527andJ2046.

Marine Engines
The primary safety issues related to exhaust emission controls pertain  to  maximum  exhaust  system surface
temperatures, the risk of exhaust system leaks (i.e. carbon monoxide) into the vessel, and the risk of flammable
gasoline  vapor mixtures around an engine.  As,discussed  above,  marine engines  used in recreational vessels
typically have water-jacketed exhaust to minimize the temperature of exposed surfaces.

USCG safety requirements for boats and associated equipment are contained in 33 CFR 183.  Subpart J deals
specifically with fuel systems on boats and includes specifications for fuel pumps and carburetors on the engine.
The scope of Subpart J includes all gasoline propulsion and auxiliary marine engines, excluding outboards. These
regulations state that the fuel pump must be on the engine or within 12 inches of the engine and that it must not leak
rue) even if the diaphragm fails.  These regulations also limit the amount that a carburetor may leak under several
specified conditions and require anti-siphon valves and fuel shut off valves under specific conditions. The purpose
of these requirements  is to minimize the risk of fuel spilling into the boat.  In addition 46 CFR part 58 includes
installation requirements  for gasoline marine engines.   These installation requirements  include backfire  flame
control, drip collectors for carburetors, cooling  or insulation for  the  exhaust system,  and safe exhaust pipe
installations.  These regulations do not apply to OB engines because they are not considered to  be permanently
installed.  Supplemental recommended practice for electric fuel transfer pumps is included in ABYC H-24 which
specifies delivery hose length, outlet pressure, and  when the pump may be energized.

The only USCG safety standards that directly apply to OB engines are in 33 CFR 183, Subpart L. These standards
require that outboards capable  of a minimum specified thrust must be equipped with a device to  prevent the OB
                                                                                                    154

-------
from being started in gear. USCG has not promulgated further safety standards for OB engines primarily because
the need has not been demonstrated for further regulation.

USCG standards for ventilation of vapors from boats with gasoline engines (auxiliary or propulsion) are contained
in 33 CFR  183, Subpart K.  Subpart K requires that each compartment containing a gasoline engine be open to the
atmosphere or be vented by a blower system.  Where a powered ventilation system is required, USCG requires a
label stating "Warning—gasoline vapors can explode.  Before starting engine, operate blower for 4 minutes and
check engine compartment bilge for gasoline vapors."  These ventilation requirements are supplemented by ABYC
H-2 which also requires compartments with non-metallic fuel tanks to be vented to atmosphere.

ABYC P-l states that all surfaces on the exhaust system on  permanently installed marine engines that may come
into contact with persons or gear must be at or below 200°F or have protective guards, jacketing, or covers.

ABYC also details recommended practices for minimizing the risk of CO exposure on boats.  These recommended
practices are described in ABYC TH-23 which is a technical report  intended for design, construction, and testing
criteria to identify and minimize the presence of CO around a boat with a gasoline propulsion or auxiliary marine
engine.

Marine Vessel Fuel Systems

The primary safety  issue regarding marine  fuel systems is  to prevent  fuel from leaking into the boat,  USCG
requirements for marine fuel systems are located in 33 CFR 183, Subpart J. Subpart J deals specifically with fuel
systems on boats and contains durability and other design requirements for fuel tanks and fuel hoses. It should be
noted that Subpart J applies  to all boats that have gasoline engines  (propulsion and/or auxiliary), except for OB
engines.  However, ABYC H-24 supplements 33 CFR 183 and extends these practices to all boats with gasoline fuel
systems, including OB engines.  Some smaller boats do not have installed gasoline fuel systems. Operators of these
boats use OB engines attached to portable fuel tanks which are covered by ABYC H-25. Specifications for marine
fuel hoses and fuel tanks are discussed below.

Fuel Hoses

Both 33 CFR  183 and ABYC H-24 reference SAE J1527 for the proper design of marine fuel hoses. The USCG
regulations and SAE recommended practice distinguishes between Type A and Type B fuel hose.  Type A fuel  hose
normally contains liquid fuel  while Type B hose normally contains no liquid rue). Both hose types are subject to the
2l/2 minute  flame test  under 33 CFR  183, Subpart J; however, Type B hose has a more relaxed permeation
requirement.. In addition, both types of hose must still be self extinguishing within 60 seconds when burned.  SAE J
1527 includes several other  durability tests including abrasion resistance, burst pressure, vacuum collapse,  cold
temperature flexibility, tensile strength and elongation, oil resistance, ozone resistance, and fuel resistance tests on
ASTM fuel C and a test fuel containing 85 percent ASTM fuel C and  15 percent methanol. The fuel resistance  tests
state that the  hose  must meet  maximum tensile change, elongation change, and volume changes after being
immersed in the  test fuels. Also, SAE JI527 specifies maximum allowable permeation rates on the two test fuels.
Finally, this recommended practice includes an adhesion test which  sets a minimum  load required to separate the
tube from the protective cover.

PWC manufacturers generally use an alternative recommended practice provided under SAE J2046  for their fuel
system designs.  This recommended practice includes tests and limits for tensile strength and  elongation, dry  heat
resistance, ozone resistance,  oil  heat resistance, burst pressure, vacuum  collapse, cold temperature flexibility, and
resistance to ASTM fuel C. This fuel resistance includes immersing the hose in fuel and testing the tensile change,
elongation change, and volume change. Also, a permeation limit is set for ASTM fuel C. In addition, SAE J2046
contains an adhesion test which sets a minimum load for separating the tube and cover.  Finally, this recommended
practice includes a 2l/i minute flame test for the entire fuel system.

For fuel hose used with portable fuel tanks, UL 1185 recommends that fuel hose meet the USCG Type A or Type B
standards discussed above.
                                                                                                    155

-------
Fuel Tanks

33 CFR 183 Subpart J includes several specifications and durability tests for marine fuel tanks which are installed in
vessels with gasoline propulsion or auxiliary engines, excluding OB engines.  These fuel tank specifications include
prohibited materials, labeling requirements, and a limit on the pressure in the  fuel tank of 80 percent of the pressure
marked on the label that the tank can withstand without leaking (at least 3 psi).  The fuel tanks must pass several
durability tests without leaking. These durability tests include a static pressure test, a shock test, a pressure impulse
test (25,000 cycles from 0-3 psi), a slosh test (500,000 cycles ± 15° from level), and a 2'/2 minute fire test.

ABYC H-24 supplements 33 CFR 183 and extends these practices to all gasoline powered boats with installed fuel
tanks, including those using OB engines.  One notable addition is that ABYC H-24 requires a 5/8" ID vent hose to
prevent pressure from building up in the fuel tank. Additional requirements are contained in UL 1102 which
references ASTM H-24 and 33 CFR 183, Subpart J. These additional requirements include shock testing of fittings,
a static pressure test, and requirements for gaskets to be tested for fuel and oil  resistance and atmospheric aging.

ABYC H-25 defines recommended practices for the design of portable  marine fuel tanks. These specifications
include requirements for color (red), UV inhibitors, mechanical strength from -18°C to  60°C,  labeling, and vent
openings that can be closed so that they are liquid and vapor tight.  This recommended  practice includes several
durability tests as well. These durability tests include  a low temperature drop test, exposure to a test fuel of 85
percent ASTM fuel  C blended with 15 percent methanol, and an expansion and contraction test.  UL 1185 includes
additional requirements including standards for fittings and accessories integral to the portable fuel tank such as the
fuel hose and the quick connect fittings. Additional  tests for the fuel tank include vibration, durability of vent and
fill closures, fitting impact, permeation, light and water exposure, and a fire test. In addition there are requirements
for gaskets to be tested for fuel and oil resistance and atmospheric aging.

D.  EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

Marine Engines

We expect to propose emission standards for OB and PWC that will require significant upgrades in fuel systems and
calibration. These standards  are expected to eliminate  carbureted two-stroke engines from the market.  These 2-
stroke engines have short-circuiting losses in the cylinder due to the intake  and exhaust  valves being open at the
same time. As a result, 25 percent or more of the fuel passes through the engine unburned.  Over the past decade,
manufacturers have introduced lower emitting four-stroke or direct-injection two-stroke engines across their entire
product lines.  We  anticipate that further emission controls will result in manufacturers  discontinuing their older
carbureted two-stroke engine  lines and  selling only their cleaner four-stroke  or direct-injection two-stroke designs.
We do not expect that the potential exhaust emission standards would require after-treatment technology for control
of exhaust emissions. We are not anticipating the use of new technology to meet the exhaust emissions standards
but only the expanded use of current cleaner technologies.

Marine Auxiliary Engines

These are small engines used on boats  for auxiliary  power,  in most cases for electric power generation. Although
they are currently categorized as Class INHH engines (and in some cases Class IINHH engines), they have features
that are unique to marine applications.  Specifically, they make use of their  environment to water-cool the engine
and water-jacket the exhaust.  Marine auxiliary engine manufacturers have aggressively pursued the development of
advanced emission control technology for these products in  response to market place concerns. These systems use
catalytic converters inside of a water-jacketed system and electronic feedback controls to give optimum air to fuel
ratio. This emission control approach allows for very low.exhaust emission levels relative to current NHH HC+NOx
and CO emission standards.

Marine Vessels

We  have  already proposed evaporative emission standards for vessels  powered by  Marine SI engines that are
similar in scope  to those discussed above for nonhandheld  land-based engines.  These include  fuel hose and fuel
                                                                                                      156

-------
tank permeation control. Also, while we are not proposing standards for controlling vessel running loss emissions,
we have already proposed standards requiring the control of diurnal emissions.

Fuel Hose

Most marine vessels using SI engines use polyvinyl chloride or nitrile rubber hose to deliver gasoline from the fuel
tank to the engine. To meet the fuel hose permeation standards under consideration, manufacturers would be able to
use the current basic type of hose construction except that an additional barrier layer would need to be added to the
construction.  A typical barrier material would likely  be a fluoroelastomer or fluoroplastic material. Current fuel
lines used in marine applications meet USCG and ABYC standards for flame resistance and durability as well as
requirements for fuel system fittings and clamps.   The barrier layers needed to control permeation are thin and are
not expected to lead to any significant differences in hose flexibility or ability to retain connections within the fuel
system. The hose which could be used is commercially available today.

Fuel tanks
                      X
Marine fuel tanks include  portable tanks constructed of HDPE and installed  fuel  tanks made of XLPE, aluminum,
and  fiberglass.  Portable fuel tanks made of HDPE are used in PWCs and with lower horsepower OB engines.
Aluminum, fiberglass, and XLPE are  used  in  installed tanks  in vessels using  higher horsepower OB engines.
HDPE, XLPE,  and fiberglass  have  poor permeation  resistance  characteristics.  Fuel does not permeate through
aluminum tanks. As was the case with NHH engines and equipment, there are several technological approaches that
can be used to reduce gasoline permeation through plastic fuel tanks. These approaches include surface treatments,
barrier constructions, and alternative materials.

Surface treatments, such as fluorination and sulfonation, do not materially change the construction of the fuel tank.
These treatments  are performed as a secondary step after the fuel tank is molded and create a thin layer on the
surfaces of the fuel tank that acts as a barrier to permeation. In fluorination a barrier is created on both the inner and
outer surfaces while in sulfonation it is created only on the inner surface. These treatments do not materially change
the construction of the fuel tank and are not expected  to affect the durability of the fuel tank because the barrier is
less than 20 microns thick.  Surface treatments are used  to meet the California gasoline permeation standards for
portable fuel cans.

Multi-layer fuel tank constructions which create a barrier to permeation have been used in automotive applications
for many years. The most common approach is to mold a thin layer of ethyl  vinyl alcohol (EVOH) inside a HDPE
shell.  This approach is commonly used in high production volume, blow-molded fuel tanks and can be used in
lower production  volumes through a molding process known as thermoforming.  Another approach available for
blow-molded fuel tanks is  to create a non-continuous barrier by blending a small amount of EVOH directly into the
HDPE.  During molding,  the EVOH creates overlapping barrier platelets which restrict permeation.  For each of
these technologies, the barrier material is only a  small percentage of the  total makeup of the fuel  tank. Non-
continuous barriers can reduce permeation by more than 85 percent while continuous barriers can achieve more than
a 99 percent reduction in permeation. These technologies have the advantage of having been in use for many years
and having been applied in various applications. Automotive manufacturers require  these fuel  tanks  to meet
durability specifications similar to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Rotationally molded XLPE tanks would be able to make use of barrier technologies. In one technique nylon, which
has  good permeability properties,  is applied as an inner  shell inside the fuel  tank.  The manufacturer  has
demonstrated that the nylon has an excellent bond with the XLPE.1  As a result of this bond and the strength of the
nylon, this construction offers strong resistance to impact.  Testing at IMANNA labs showed that a tank of this
construction met the USCG durability requirements in 33 CFR 183, Subpart J which includes impact testing and
flame resistance.2  As a result  of this bond and the strength of the nylon, the construction meets the USCG impact
and flame  resistance  requirements discussed above.  In addition,  emission testing  has shown good  permeation
control performance compared to baseline. Another new approach for XLPE tanks  is to coat the tank with a low
permeation epoxy in  a secondary  step  after molding.3  This approach does  not change the basic fuel  tank
construction but only adds an outer layer similar in thickness as a coat of paint.  In addition, an intumescent additive
                                                                                                      157

-------
has been developed which can be added to the epoxy coating for additional flame resistance. Emission testing on
this technology has also shown good emission control performance.

Fiberglass fuel tanks can meet low permeation requirements through the use of a nanocomposite barrier layer. This
barrier layer is composed of fiberglass impregnated with microscopic fibers of treated volcanic ash. A company
named ECSI has developed this technology for use in marine fuel tanks.  Through testing, ECSI has demonstrated
this technology to  meet USCG and  ABYC standards  for fuel system mechanical  strength requirements/  In
addition, emission testing has shown good emission control performance.

Diurnal Emissions Control

As was discussed in the beginning of Chapter 9, diurnal emissions occur when the rising ambient temperature heats
the fuel inside the fuel tank and displaces the fuel vapors created through fuel tank vents.  In the cases where these
venting emissions are high, a combustible fuel vapor concentration could occur if the vapor is vented  into an
enclosed space such as the confines a vessel.  In addition, fuel vapor vents create a path for fuel to spill out of the
fuel system during refueling or when fuel sloshing occurs.

The simplest approach to controlling diurnal emissions is simply to close  the tank vent. Under this scenario, when
the tank heats up, pressure would build in the  fuel tank, but no fuel vapor would be vented to the atmosphere.
Pressure would be limited with a pressure relief valve that would open at higher pressures. In addition, a vacuum
relief valve would be  needed to prevent a vacuum in the fuel tank which could restrict fuel delivery to the engine
and cause the engine  to stall.  This is really only  an option for smaller tanks where the potential for significant
geometric shape deformation under pressure is small. Portable marine fuel tanks are designed to be sealed when not
in use, and PWC use  sealed fuel tanks (with pressure relief valves) to prevent spillage during operation. Leakage
from these tanks is normally not into a confined space such as a vessel bilge.

Another well developed approach to controlling diurnal emissions has been used in automobiles for over 30 years.
In this approach a  plastic canister containing activated  carbon is placed in the vent line.  This carbon canister
collects fuel vapor vented from the fuel tank as it breathes during the day.  The canister could then be either actively
or passively purged. Active purging refers to drawing the vapor to the engine to be burned. Passive purging refers
to removing gasoline vapor stored on the activated carbon through the air naturally drawn into the fuel tank through
the vent line during  cooling periods.   Canister systems represent  a  simple technology  that has long been
demonstrated in various applications without safety issues.5


E. ASSESSMENT  OF SAFETY IMPACT OF NEW EMISSION STANDARDS

New Exhaust Emission Standards for OB/PWC

Because we are not anticipating the use  of new technology to meet the exhaust emissions standards, we do not
believe that further emission  control  will  result in an  incremental safely risks relative to the current  mix of
technology.   Current  4-stroke and 2-strke  direct injection technologies are more  sophisticated than  the older
carbureted two-stroke design and have been used for nearly a decade. Although there were some early technical
issues with two-stroke direct  injection  engines,  these issues have  been largely  resolved though significant
engineering efforts.   As a result of these  engineering efforts, the  newer 4-stroke and  2-stroke direct injection
technologies are actually more reliable than older designs. In addition, they are more fuel efficient which allows for
greater range and, arguably a lower chance of running out of fuel.  These improvements in  reliability and range
would be expected to improve safely issues related to being stranded at sea.

New Exhaust Emission Standards for Marine Auxiliary Generators

Manufacturers of marine auxiliary engines are leading the way in new exhaust emission control technology in the
marine sector. Even with catalysts packaged in the exhaust manifold, these engines have low surface temperatures
because the exhaust manifolds containing the catalysts are water-jacketed with surface water drawn and returned to
the ambient source to  cool the exhaust system.  With water jacket cooling EPA does not anticipate any heat-related
                                                                                                      158

-------
problems or increase in fire due to catalysts.  In addition, these systems are electronically controlled with feedback
systems that can be used to detect problems with the engine before they become problematic.  Finally, a safety
benefit is achieved by the very large reduction in CO emissions from these engines.  This reduction in CO will
benefit not only the boat operators but swimmers and other individuals in the vicinity of the boat.

Fuel Hose Permeation Standards

Low permeation fuel hose subject to the USCG requirements would still need to meet the requirements specified in
SAE J1527 and discussed above.  In fact, one manufacturer is selling barrier fuel hose today that meets the USCG
requirements and is used by several boat builders.  This hose meets the permeation requirements we are considering.
This hose construction is similar to baseline hose constructions except that a barrier layer  is  added.  In the same
way, manufacturers of PWC and  portable fuel tanks, would still  be expected to comply with SAE J2046 and UL
1185 respectively. To meet the fuel hose permeation standards under consideration, manufacturers would be able to
use the existing hose constructions except that an additional barrier layer would need to  be added to minimize
permeation fuel through the hose material.

Low permeation fuel hose will have no negative implications for safety and may have some benefits. The addition
of a barrier layer would not require a change in the general construction of the hose.  In addition, barrier materials
are made of compounds that are resistant to permeation by gasoline, including ethanol blends and oxidized ("sour")
gasoline.  This fuel resistance not only protects  against chemical attack, but also limits swelling due to the
permeation of fuel.  By limiting the swelling and contracting (drying) cycles and  chemical  attacks that may cause
the hose to eventually become brittle, the hose may better  resist cracking as well. The barrier hose may reduce
concentrations of fuel vapor in confined spaces where the fuel hoses are routed such as the engine compartment,
vessel bilge, or other areas in the hull where the fuel tank may be located.

This lower concentration could help prevent a flammable mixture of fuel vapor from forming within the confines of
the vessel.  It should be noted that low permeation fuel hose is available today and is used by many boat builders.

Fuel system fittings and clamps are also covered by the USCG and ABYC standards. These specifications require
the fittings to  have a bead, flare,  or other grooves to help prevent the  hose from  pulling off the fittings. Clamps
must be corrosion resistant, not cut the hose, and resist one pound tensile force. In addition, all fittings, joints, and
connections must be easily accessible for inspection and maintenance. With any changes in hose constructions, boat
builders would still need  to design their connections to meet these requirements.  As some boat builders are using
low permeation fuel hose today, they are also using corresponding fittings and clamps.
                                                                                                      159

-------
Fuel Tank Permeation Standards

In any situation where a manufacturer makes changes to fuel tanks, such as materials or geometry, they must
evaluate the potential safety effects of these changes.  Under current industry practices new fuel tank designs are
durability tested under the USCG requirements and ABYC and UL recommended practice described above. These
tests include pressure impulse, fuel and oil exposure, atmospheric aging, slosh, shock, and flame resistance.

The techniques suggested above would also meet the USCG and ABYC durability requirements including the flame
test

We expect that the use of low  permeation fuel tanks will have no negative implications for safety and may have
some benefits.  Permeation barriers  could  minimize permeation of the fuel into the tank walls and reduce any
negative effects of fuel exposure.  In addition, low permeation fuel tanks would lead to reduced concentrations of
fuel vapor  in confined spaces in the vessel hull where the fuel tank is located; a lower fuel vapor concentration
means a reduced risk of fire. The choice of proper materials and construction durability is also important.

Under our current permeation requirements for recreational vehicles, we require durability testing as part of the fuel
tank permeation test procedure. Prior to the permeation test, the fuel tank is filled with gasoline containing 10%
ethanol and soaked for 20 weeks at 28±5°C. In addition, the fuel tank is subject to a pressure vacuum test made up
of 10,000 cycles from -0.5 to 2.0 psi,  a slosh test made up 1 million cycles where the tank is rocked ±°15, and a 240
hour  UV exposure test.   Although  these tests are intended to  help ensure  the long  term effectiveness of the
permeation control technology, they also inherently assess the durability of the fuel tank as well.

Fuel Tank Diurnal  Emission Control Standards

Portable fuel tanks are currently designed to be pressurized through a manual control valve on the vent.  The use of
a sealed tank with  vacuum relief would not add to the pressure experienced by the fiiel tank and therefore offer no
incremental safety  risk. The vacuum relief valve could offer a safety benefit in that it could prevent occurrences of
engine stalling that may occur if the operator were to forget to open the manual  valve prior to starting the engine.
PWC fuel tanks are already using sealed fuel systems with pressure relief valves.  We expect that this design would
meet the emission control requirements under consideration.

Carbon canisters do not present an incremental risk to safety for marine vessel use.  These canisters are passive
systems in  the vent line and create nothing more than nominal backpressure on the tank. The use of the carbon
canister can have positive safety implications. First, the carbon will collect vapor from the fuel tank  which will
result in less gasoline vapor which can infiltrate the engine and bilge areas on the. boat.  Second, the design of the
diurnal control system will include a mechanism to prevent fuel from entering the vent hose during refueling. This
mechanism could be as simple as a small orifice between the fuel tank and the canister that would be sized to limit
fuel from entering  the vent hose during refueling but be large enough to prevent a restriction on vapor flow during
diurnal breathing.  For an average fuel tank, this orifice would be on the order of 1mm in diameter.  This could help
reduce fuel spillage that sometimes occurs today from the vent line during refueling. Because  the fiiel tank would
need to vent through the canister to achieve the emission reductions, the fuel cap would need to form a vapor tight
seal.  Four boat manufacturers installed carbon  canisters last summer on a total of fourteen boats as part of a
demonstration project. At the end of the summer, all of the canisters were still operating properly and no safety
incidences were reported.6
                                                                                                      160

-------
F. CONCLUSION

EPA reviewed the characteristics of marine engines less than 50 horsepower and evaluated the emission control
technologies  used to  reduce exhaust emissions from  these engines.  EPA  also  reviewed the fuel system
characteristics for marine vessels using these engines and evaluated emission control technologies which could be
used to reduce fuel evaporative emissions from these two subcategories.  Marine engines including marine auxiliary
engines  must meet USCG standards  related  to safety.   In  addition, it is industry practice to meet ABYC
requirements. There are thousands of 4-stroke and 2-stroke direct injection engines in the fleet today which would
meet the exhaust emission  standards being considered  by EPA. Based on the fact that the technology needed to
meet the standards we are considering is already in use in both OB and PWC engines, EPA does not believe that the
technology needed to meet new standards would result in an increase of risk of fire and burn to consumers in use.

With regard to fuel hoses, fuel tanks, and  diurnal controls, there are rigorous USCG, ABYC, UL,  and  SAE
standards which manufacturers will continue to meet for fuel system components. In addition, USCG and others
would be able to expand their requirements in response to new fuel systems designs if they saw the  need to do so.
Furthermore,  the EPA permeation certification  requirements related to emissions durability will add an additional
layer of assurance. Low permeation fuel hoses are used safely today in many marine  vessels.  Low permeation fuel
tanks and diurnal emission controls have been demonstrated in various applications  for many years without an
increase in safety risk.

Furthermore, a properly designed fuel system with fuel tank and fuel hose permeation controls and diurnal emission
controls would reduce the fuel  vapor  in the boat, thereby  reducing the opportunities for fuel related fires.  In
addition, using improved low permeation materials coupled with designs meeting USCG and ABYC requirements
should reduce the risk  of fuel leaks  into the vessel. EPA believes  that the application of emission control
technologies on marine engines  and vessels for meeting  the proposed evaporative emissions standards would not
lead to an increase in incremental risk of fires or burns.
1  O'Brien, G., Partridge, R., Clay, B.,  "New Materials and Multi-Layer Rotomolding Technology  for Higher
Barrier Performance Rotomolded Tanks," Atofina Chemicals, 2004, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0044.
2 Partridge, R., "Petro-Seal for Ultra-low Fuel Permeation; Evaporative EPA Emissions from Boat Fuel Systems,"
Arkema, Presentation at the 2004 International Boatbuilders' Exhibition and Conference, October 25,2004, Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0252.
3  Bauman, B., "Advances in Plastic Fuel Tanks," Fluoro-Seal International, Presentation at the 2004 International
Boatbuilders' Exhibition and Conference, October 25,2004 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0036.
4    Chambers, J.,  "Marine Fuel  Containment... A  Permanent Solution," Engineered  Composite  Structures,
Presentation at the 2004 International Boatbuilders' Exhibition and Conference, October 25,2004 Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0008-0037.
5 "Stopping Vehicle Fires & Reducing Evaporative Emissions: The Need to Control Gasoline & Alcohol Blend
Volatility," Center for Auto Safety, March 1988, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0330.
6  Tschantz, M., "Summer Test Program Carbon Analysis," Meadwestvaco Corporation, Presentation at the 2005
International Boatbuilders' Exhibition and Conference, October 20,2005 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0008-0290.
                                                                                                   161

-------
Appendix A- Basic principles of Infrared thermal imaging1
IR TEMPERATURE BASICS

Temperature is a measure of the thermal energy contained by an object; the degree of hotness or coldness of an
object is measurable by a number of means and is defined by temperature scales. Temperature, in turn, determines
the direction of net heat flow between two objects.

There are three modes of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation.  All heat is transferred by means of
one or another of these three modes, infrared thermography is most closely associated with radiative heat transfer,
but it is essential to understand all three in order to comprehend the significance of IR Thermograms.

CONDUCTIVE HEAT TRANSFER

Conductive heat transfer is the transfer of heat in stationary media.  It is the only mode of heat flow in solids, but
can also take place in liquids and gases.  It occurs as a result of atomic vibrations and (in solids) and molecular
collisions (in  liquids). Whereby energy is moved, one molecule at a time, from higher temperature sites to lower
temperature sites.

CONVECTIVE HEAT TRANSFER

Convective heat flow takes place in a moving medium and is almost always associated with transfers between a
solid and a moving fluid (such as air).  Free convection takes place when the temperature differences necessary for
heat  transfer produce density changes in the fluid and the warmer fluid rises  as a result of increased buoyancy.
Forced convection takes place when an external driving force, such as a cooling fan, moves the fluid.

RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER

Radiative heat transfer is unlike the other two modes in several respects:

    •   It can propagate through a vacuum

    •   It occurs by electromagnetic emission and absorption.

    •   It occurs at the speed of light and behaves in a manner similar to light

While conductive and convective heat transferred between points is linearly proportional  to the temperature
difference' between them,  the energy radiated from a surface is proportional  to the fourth power of  its absolute
temperature.  The radiant thermal energy is transferred between two  surfaces is proportional to the third power of
the temperature difference between the surfaces.

Thermal infrared radiation leaving a surface is  called radiant exitance or radiosity.  It can be emitted from the
surface, reflected off a surface, or transmitted through a surface.  The total radiosity is equal to the sum of the
emitted component, reflected component and the transmitted component. The surface temperature, however, is only
related to the emitted component.

The  measurement of thermal infrared radiation is the  basis for  non-contact temperature measurement and IR
thermography. Like  light energy, thermal radiation is a photonic phenomenon that occurs in  the electromagnetic
spectrum.  While light energy takes place in the visible portion of the spectrum, radiative heat transfer takes place in
the infrared portion of the spectrum.

All target surfaces warmer than absolute zero radiate energy in the infrared  spectrum.  Very hot targets radiate
visibly as well. IR thermal imagers measure and display images of this infrared radiated energy.
                                                                                                   162

-------
From the point  of view of IR  radiation characteristics, there  are three types of target surfaces; blackbodies,
graybodies and non-graybodies (also called spectral bodies).  A black body radiator is defined as "a theoretical
surface having unit emissivity at all wavelengths and absorbing all radiant energy impinging upon it"  Emissivity is
defined as the ratio of radiant energy emitted from a surface to the energy emitted from a blackbody surface at the
same temperature. Although blackbody radiators are theoretical and do not exist in practice, the surface of most
solid objects are graybodies, that is, surfaces with emissivities that are fairly constant with wavelength.

Total radiosity available to a measuring device from a target surface has three components: emitted energy, reflected
energy and energy transmitted through the target surface.  If the target is a blackbody emitter, it has an emissivity
equal to one, and it will reflect and transmit no energy. If the target is a graybody emitter, then it will resemble a
black body in spectral distribution, but since its emissivity is  less than one, it may also reflect and/or transmit
energy. If the target is a non-graybody emitter, it may also emit, reflect and transmit energy. Since only the emitted
component is related to temperature of the target surface it becomes apparent that a significant step in making IR
temperature measurements is eliminating or compensating for the other two components.

Infrared radiation from the target passes through  some transmitting medium on its way to the infrared instrument. If
the medium is a vacuum then there is no loss of energy, but most infrared measurements are mad through air.  The
effect of atmospheric gases can be ignored for short distances, such as a few meters.

HOW THE IR FLEXCAM T AND IR  SNAPSHOT CAMERA'S CONVERT RADIANCE TO TEMPERATURE

The IR Flexcam T and IR Snapshot imagers correct the  infrared radiance from any single point on the target surface,
so as to  approach the  true temperature measurements at that location.   To do this, it first assumes  that the IR
absorption of the air path between the target and the instrument is negligible. It also assumes that there is no IR
energy transmitted through the target from sources behind the target.   In order to correct for reflection of the
ambient background it requires the operator to input the background temperature. Note that the EPA-NVFEL test
cells are held at a temperature of 25C +/- 1C.

The operator also inputs  the  targets  estimated emissivity.  All the  targets of interest (Mufflers/Catalysts/Heat
Shields) have been painted with a high temperature flat-black paint which has a very dull mane finish.  This is  used
to even out the emissivity of the object over the surface as well as to increase the value of the emissivity of the
object.  An emissivity of 0.9 was used for this project.  To check the validity of the emissivity assumptions, a
comparison of the surface temperature measured with the IR imager was made to a known surface temperature
measured with a thermocouple. The temperatures were within 1% of agreement.

The IR imagers used for EPA's test program have the  following general specifications.  They use microbolometer
detectors that require no cryogenic cooling. The detector elements are square and are located in a rectangular  grid.
The optical path of the camera includes an appropriate band-pass filter for the temperature range of interest. The IR
Snapshot Camera has a NIST traceable calibration from IOC to 1200C with accuracy of 2C or 2% of reading.  The
[R FlexCam has a NIST traceable calibration from OC  to 600C with accuracy of 2C or 2% of reading.  The lenses
for both cameras  are made from  germanium and are anti-reflective coated for high transmission in the temperature
range of choice.

The calibration of both the IR Flexcam and IR  Snapshot was repeated on January 11, 2006. Both imagers were
within the manufacturer's accuracy specifications, thus neither imager required  calibration adjustment.  The
calibration results are presented in Tables A-l and A-2.
                                                                                                     163

-------
Table A-1:  Summary of results for the validation of temperature calibrations for the "FlexCamT" and "FLIR"
imagers.  Both imagers were adjusted to account for the emissivity of the temperature targets  and an ambient
temperature of 25°C.
                                 EP AIR Flexcam T
                                 Point Temperature
Emissivity of
Temperature
Target
0.98
0.93
0.97
0.93
Target
Temperature
(°C)
5
100
350
600
                                        4.6
                                        99.1
                                       351.8
                                       590.1
Table A-2:  Summary of results for the validation of temperature calibration for the EPA "IR Snapshot" imager.
Briggs & Stratum FLIR
Point Average
Temperature Temperature
4.9
102
350
602
v *-/
5.6
101.6
351.5
601.6
Emissivity of
Temperature
Target
.0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
Target
Temperature
(°C)
5
20
37
50
75
100
240
300
350
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Average
Temperature
(°C)
3.51
19.57
36.44
49.19
74.18
98.99
239.8
301.85
350.88
594.65
694.06
793.47
901.97
986.42
1091.14
1192.84
1 Adapted from the IR Flexcam T and IR Snapshot Operating Manuals, Infrared Solutions Inc., Plymouth, MN,
2004.
                                                                                                  164

-------
Appendix B: Emissions Results
Table B-l : Emissions summary - Class I OHV engines at low (10-20) hours.
Engine
241
241
255
255
2982
2982
243
243
244
244
245
245
Tested
Configuration
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air
OEM
Catalyst-
muffler*, venturi
air
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air**
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air"*
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air
HC+NOx
(g/kW-hr)
10.6 ±0.5
3.9 ±0.2
11.2
5.0
8.4 ± 0.5
4.9 ±0.3
13.4 ±0.9
7±1
11.0
7.2
10.9
5.6
NOx
(g/kW-hr)
3.0 ±0.3
1.45 ±0.2
3.2
0.7
4.4 ± 0.4
2.8 ± 0.2
4.6 ±0.3
1.8 ±0.2
1.8
1.1
2.4
0.6
' HC
(g/kW-hr)
7.6 ± 0.3
2.5 ±0.3
8.0
4.3
4.0 ± 0.3
2.2 ±0.3
9±1
5±1
9.2
6.1
8.5
5.0
CO
(g/kW-hr)
313 ±29
138 ±46
340
288
161 ±15
85 ±10
351 ±13
334 ±50
517
433
472
381
Notes:
Engines 24 1 , 255, and 2982 are from the same engine family.
Engines 243, 244, and 245 are from the same engine family
"Tubular pre-catalyst, 22cc 200 cpsi metal monolith downstream of stamped secondary-air venturi
**35 cc, 100 cpsi metal monolith, stamped secondary-air venturi.
*** Reduced substrate volume, tubular venturi.
Stamped Venturis used were based on the OEM design.
"±" values represent 95% confidence intervals for a 2-sided t-test, for 3 to 4 replicate measurements.
                                                            165

-------
       Table B-2: Emissions summary — Class I side-valve engines at low (10-20) hours.
Engine
6820
258
258
236
236
246
246
248
248
249
249
Tested
Configuration
OEM
OEM .
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
(no secondary
air)*
HC+NOx
(g/kW-hr)
10.8 ±0.5
10.5
6.7
15.2 ±.2
4.9 ±0.6
12.4
5.6
12.0
4.6
11.3
6.3 .
NOx
(g/kW-hr)
2.2 ± 0.2
2.5
1.2
3.0 ±0.8
0.90 ±0.05
1.8
0.8
3.0
0.8
3.0
0.9
HC
(g/kW-hr)
8.7 ±0.6
8.1 (,
5.5
12.1 ±0.8
4.0 ±0.7
10.6
4.8
9.0
3.8
8.3
5.4
CO
(g/kW-hr)
458 ±45
487
380
380 ±38
218 ±62
490
333
403
294
413
351
Notes:
Engines 6820 and 258 were from the same engine family, and used identical catalyst muffler designs.
Engines 236, 246, and 249 were from the same engine family.
Stamped Venturis used were based on the OEM design.
"±" values represent 95% confidence intervals for a 2-sided t-test, for 3 to 4 replicate measurements.
The catalyst-muffler for engine 6820 was not available until just prior to the initiation of field aging - emissions
measurements at low-hours were not conducted.
*Rh-only catalyst
Table B-3: Emissions summary - Class I OHV and side-valve engine tested at high (>110) hours.
Engine
241 (OHV)
241
2982 (OHV)
- 2982
6820 (side-
valve)
6820-
Tested
Configuration
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air
OEM
Catalyst-muffler,
venturi air
HC+NOx
(g/kW-hr)
13.4 ±0.6
6.6 ±0.2
10.2 ±0.4
7.0 ±0.4
15.4 ±0.4
9.4 ± 0.7
NOx
(g/kW-hr)
5.2 ± 0.4
3.2 ±0.2
6.1 ±0.4
4.5 ± 0.3
2.6 ± 0.5
2.8 ± I
HC
(g/kW-hr)
8.1 ± 0.6
3.4 ±0.1
4.1 ± 0.2
2.5 ± 0.2
13±1
6.6 ±0.8
CO
(g/kW-hr)
266 ±9
180 ±4
148 ±6
85±6
380 ±42
168 ±19
Notes:
"±" values represent 95% confidence intervals for a 2-sided t-test, for 3 to 4 replicate measurements.
                                                                                          166

-------
                Table B-4: Emissions summary - Class II OHV engines at low (10-40) hours.
Engine
231
231
231
251
251
252
253
253
232
232
232
233
Tested
Configuration
OEM
EF1
EFI, catalyst-
muffler
OEM
catalyst muffler
OEM
OEM
catalyst muffler
OEM
EFI
EFI, catalyst-
muffler
OEM
HC+NOx
(g/kW-hr)
7.0 ±1
6.9
1.8 ±0.4
9.2
3.1 ±0.3
9.1 ±0.8
6.9 ± 0.4
4.5 ±0.1
8.5 ±0.5
8.0 ±0.3
2.2 ±0.1
8.1 ±0.7
NOx
(g/kW-hr)
3.0 ±0.6
3.0
0.6 ± 0.2
5.9
0.9 ±0.6
7.3 ±0.8
3.0 ±0.1
0.29 ± 0.01
2.25 ± 0.08
4.4 ± 0.3
0.8 ±0.2
2.2 ±0.3
HC
(g/kW-hr)
4±1
3.8
1.3 ±0.5
3.3
2.8 ± 0.4
1.8 ±0.2
4.0 ±0.5
4.2 ±0.1
6.2 ± 0.5
3.7 ±0.6
1.4 ±0.2
6.0 ±0.4
CO
(g/kW-hr)
333 ± 60
308
120 ±29
228
• 245 ± 93
188 ±33
380 ±23
529±11
475 ± 29
274 ± 42
154 ±27
459 ±24

Table B-5: Pre- and Post-catalyst emissions for a Carbureted 400cc Class II engine after 50,300, and 500 hours of
                                              operation.
Engine
142
142
142
142
142
142
Tested
Configuration
OEM
Catalyst
OEM
Catalyst
OEM
Catalyst
Accumulated
Hours of
Engine .
Operation
50
50
300
300
500
500
HC+NOx
(g/kW-hr)
6.56 ±0.03
2.5 ± 0.6
7.27 ±0.1 8
3. 5 ±0.04
9.8 ±0.1
2.8 ±0.7
NOx
(g/kW-hr)
2.8 ±0.1
0.12 ±0.06
3.60 ±0.08
0.367 ±
0.002
6.4 ± 0.2
0.7 ±0.2
HC
(g/kW-hr)
3.74 ± 0.07
2.3 ± 0.6
3.7 ±0.1
3.15 ±0.04
3.4 ±0.1
2.1 ±0.5
CO
(g/kW-hr)
300± 15
282 ± 47
238 ±4
263 ±9
165 ±7
170 ±26
Notes:
The catalyst tested with engine 142 is a duplicate of the unit tested within the catalyst-muffler of engine 253.
                                                                                                  167

-------
                                                             I
Appendix C - FMEA of Small SI Equipment and Engines
                                                   168

-------
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       The U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) issued  Work Assignment  1-10,
"Design/Conduct  FMEAs  for  Small SI  Equipment  and Engines"  to  Southwest Research
Institute® (SwRI®).  The work was to analyze the potential safety impact of possible Phase 3
emissions  standards, which  include a  35% reduction  in  HC+NOx exhaust emissions and
evaporative emission standards on small  spark-ignited (SI) engines (<19kW).  The standards are
expected to result in the use  of exhaust  catalysts and evaporative emission control systems on
small spark-ignited  (SI) engines (<19kW).  Since catalysts  are exothermic (a process that
produces heat) in  operation, the addition of catalysts to future products required that potential
incremental safety impacts be evaluated and understood.

       A team of representatives from SwRI, EPA, and Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) contributed to the completion of this work assignment. The EPA set the direction for the
study and provided data and  technical information on the Phase 2 and Phase 3 products under
review. The CPSC provided product safety information from multiple databases which was
helpful in identifying potential failure modes  for the study.  SwRI contributed the experienced
engine experts, the FMEA process experience and conducted the independent FMEA analysis.

       A Design Failure Mode and Effects  Analysis (FMEA) format was selected to evaluate the
incremental safety impact between existing  Phase 2 products (current production models) and the
expected Phase 3  products.  The scope of  the assignment included Class I and Class II engine
systems, which relate to walk-behind and riding lawn mowers, respectively.  These equipment
types represent the majority of sales for small SI engines and this is also the area where EPA has
received comment from various stakeholders in pre-proposal  discussions.  A Process FMEA
format was chosen to evaluate common  human  interactions with the mower equipment.  Three
Process FMEAs were  conducted  to  evaluate  the safety impact  associated with  equipment
refueling, storage, and maintenance.  These FMEA results were then used to assess if the
addition of a catalyst or fuel evaporative emission control would pose any incremental safety
impact associated with these processes.

       The SAE J3739 FMEA procedure  was  the basis  for the format for the FMEA.   This
document states that "An FMEA can be described as a systematic group of activities intended to:
(a) recognize and evaluate the potential failure of a product/process and the effects of that failure,
(b) identify actions that could eliminate  or reduce the chance of the potential failure  occurring,
and (c) document the process. It is complementary to the process of defining what a design or
process must do to satisfy the customer".

       The FMEA process identifies Potential Failure Modes and Potential Effect(s) of Failure.
Each Potential Effect(s) of Failure is classified with regards to Safety, Regulatory, Performance,
or Other. The main  focus of this analysis was to draw attention to the Safety related items. The
Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated for Phase 2 and prototype Phase 3 engines for each
line item in the FMEA. The delta RPN was calculated by subtracting  RPN (Phase 2)  from RPN
(Phase 3):  Delta RPN = Ph3 RPN - Ph2 RPN.

       Three cases were observed in the analysis:

-------
       a.     Delta RPN = 0:  Many Safety line items show  no significant changes in Risk
             Priority Number (RPN) between current Phase 2 prototype Phase 3 engines.

       b.     Delta RPN > 0:  A number of Safety line items show that RPN is reduced in the
             prototype Phase 3 engines due to improved design and better reliability.

       c.     Delta RPN < 0: One Safety line item in each Class (I & II) shows that the RPN is
             higher for the Phase 3 engine.

       The Phase 3 engine definition within this report (Table 3) is the  basis for the Phase 3
engine system analyzed in this analysis.  It is based on a number of engine prototypes, catalyst
prototypes, thermal data,  field, dyno  and emission testing by EPA. The  main features of this
engine over the majority of existing Phase 2 engines include:

       a.     Application of catalyst (moderate activity  30-50%)  designed  to minimize CO
             oxidation, maximize NOX reduction, with low HC oxidation efficiency at high
             exhaust-flow-rates and high HC oxidation  efficiency at low-exhaust flowrates.
             This design is expected to minimize catalyst exotherm.

       b.     Cooling and shrouding of engine and muffler to  minimize surface temperatures.
             Use of heat shielding and/or air-gap insulated exhaust components to minimize
             surface temperatures.

       c.     Improved component design and manufacturing processes to reduce Air-Fuel
             ratio production variability to stabilize engine performance and emissions.

       d.     Evaporative emission controls: hoses, tank, cap, and running loss system.

       The prototype Phase 3 engine evaluated by the FMEA team had less potential to cause
fires and operator burns than some equipment now in production.  EPA's thermal data on Phase
2 and Phase 3 product showed muffler heat shield temperatures were equivalent or cooler.

       EPA is  considering  evaporative requirements,  some of  which  will also reduce the
occurrence of fuel leaks,  and subsequently fire and burn risks. Leaks will be reduced during
tipping of equipment with the following controls to reduce running loss emissions: 1) use of fuel
caps with no venting or with venting through a tortuous path (to control diffusion-related venting
emissions), and 2) a restriction,  a limited flow orifice or a valve,  placed in the vent line to the
engine to keep the engine manifold vacuum from drawing too  much vapor from the fuel tank
(route the  vapor to the engine intake to be burned by the engine). Other possibilities to reduce
fuel  leakage include moving the fuel tanks away from  heat sources and using a tethered cap.
Leaks from the tanks and lines will be lessened due to the material improvements likely to be
made to reduce permeation from these components.

-------
       Three processes were identified for FMEA analysis: refueling, equipment storage, and
maintenance.  The FMEAs were done to identify if there could be any potential for increased
concern of Phase 3 engine  systems  with catalyst mufflers compared to the current Phase 2
product.  Due to the fact that these processes are done with the engine off, the processes were
analyzed with respect to worst case outcomes after shut-off. It was concluded that there were no
additional areas of concern with Phase 3 prototypes versus Phase 2 engine designs.  This was
based  on redesign associated  with meeting  Phase  3 fuel  evaporative emission  control
requirements and EPA's thermal data that showed the muffler's hot soak temperatures were
comparable, or potentially reduced, with properly designed Phase 3 catalyst systems. In case of
fuel spills due to tipping of equipment, there is the potential for lower occurrence ranking due to
fuel system modifications and upgrades associated with meeting the fuel evaporative emission
control requirements EPA is considering. Reductions in vapor emissions during storage would
occur as a result of using less permeable tanks and lines.
                                           in

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                         Page
1.0    INTRODUCTION	1
2.0    FMEA BACKGROUND / DESCRIPTION	3
3.0    THE SWRI APPROACH FOR THE SMALL ENGINE FMEA PROJECT	4
      A.    FMEA Team Make-up	4
      B.    Cases to be studied	5
      C.    Definitions and Constraints for this study	10
      D.    Sources of Data and Information	13
      E.    FMEA Process and Documentation Structure	15
4.0    DISCUSSION OF RESULTS	20
5.0    CONCLUSIONS	45

ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1  EPA Statement of Work
Attachment 2  Reference Photographs of Phase 2 and Prototype Phase 3 Hardware at EPA
Attachment 3  Notes on Class II Soak Data from EPA
Attachment 4  List of Standards Reviewed for the FMEA Study
Attachment 5  Example: A Typical FMEA Report Format
Attachment 6  Example: The Modified FMEA Report Format used in W.A. 1-10
Attachment 7  Representation of the Catalyst Control Volume
Attachment 8  Class I Design FMEA Report
Attachment 9  Class II Design FMEA Report
Attachment 10 Process FMEA Report - Refueling Process for Class I and Class II, Phase 2 and
      Phase 3 Equipment
Attachment 11 Process FMEA Report - Shutdown and Equipment Storage Process for Class I
      and Class II, Phase 2 and Phase 3 Equipment
Attachment 12 Process FMEA Report - Equipment and Engine Maintenance for Class I and
      Class II, Phase 2 and Phase 3  Equipment
Attachment 13 l Ignition Property  Data of Various Materials  and Human Skin Damage  at
      Elevated Temperature/Radiant Heat Exposure Data
                                      IV

-------
                                LIST OF FIGURES
                                                                              Page
Figure A2-1. Stock Briggs Quantum Side Valve Complete Engine	1
Figure A2-2. Stock Briggs Quantum European Catalytic Muffler	1
Figure A2-3. Stock Briggs Quantum SV Close up of Front of European Catalytic Muffler	2
Figure A2-4. Stock Briggs Quantum SV Close up of Back of European Catalytic Muffler	2
Figure A2-5. Stock Briggs Quantum SV European Catalytic Muffler Shroud	3
Figure A2-6. Stock Briggs Quantum SV European Catalytic Muffler Interior	3
Figure A2-7. Stock Briggs Quantum SV Center European Catalytic Muffler Interior with
      Substrate Removed	4
Figure A2-8. Stock Briggs Quantum SV European Catalytic Muffler Supplemental Air Venturi4
Figure A2-9. Stock Honda GVC 160 without Muffler	5
Figure A2-10. Stock Honda GVC 160 Muffler with Shroud	5
Figure A2-11. EPA Prototype Catalyzed Muffler in Shroud for Honda GVC 160	6
Figure A2-12. EPA Prototype Muffler with Exhaust Gas Cooling Air Ejector Around Exhaust
      for Honda GVC 160	6
Figure A2-13. EPA Prototype Muffler Air Ejection Tube for Honda GVC 160	7
Figure A2-14. EPA Prototype Muffler Ceramic Substrate for Honda GVC 160	7
Figure A2-15. Tube Catalyst for Insertion in Exhaust Port	8
Figure A2-16. Prototype Low Cell Density Metal Substrate Catalyst	8
Figure A2-17. Wire Mesh Catalyst in Muffler	9
Figure A2-18. Wire Mesh Catalyst Removed from Muffler	9
Figure A2-19. Stock Honda GVC160 Mower	10
Figure A2-20. Briggs 6.Quantum with Briggs European Catalyzed Muffler	10
Figure A2-21. Briggs Intek Engine with Dual Substrate European Muffler and Cooling Air Duct
      	-.	;	-.	11
Figure A2-22. Stock Briggs Intek Engine with Stock Muffler	11
Figure A2-23. Stock Tecumseh LV195BA	12
Figure A2-24. Briggs Dual Metallic Substrate European Muffler on Tecumseh LV195BA	12
Figure A2-25. Stock Kawaskt FH 601D Intake Air	13
Figure A2-26. Stock Kawasaki FH 601D Muffler	13
Figure A2-27. Kawasaki FH 60 ID Muffler with Air Injection & Catalyst	14
Figure A2-28. Triple Pass Catalyst with Double Wall	14
Figure A2-29. Stock Muffler with Inserted Catalyst	15
Figure A2-30. Stock Muffler with Inserted Catalyst	15
Figure A2-31. High Efficiency Dual Catalyst Ahead of Muffler	16
Figure A2-32. Briggs Intek 31P777 Showing No Head Cooling Fins	16
Figure A2-33. Kohler CH26 With Stock Muffler without Catalyst, With EFI With Ego Sensor
      Feedback	17
Figure A2-34. Kohler Catalyzed Muffler for CH26 EFI Engine with Feedback Ego Sensor	17
Figure A2-35. Prototype Briggs 31P777 Intek with Oil Cooler	18
Figure A2-36. Prototype Briggs 31P777 Intek With Air Ducted To Catalyst Muffler	18
Figure A2-37. Prototype Briggs 31P777 Intek Close-Up of ECU & Fuel Injector	19
Figure A2-38. Stock Briggs 31P777 Intek on Riding Mower	19
Figure A2-39. Stock Kohler CV490 Riding Mower	20

-------
Figure A2-40. Kohler CV490 Riding Mower with Catalyzed Muffler & Modified Shroud
      Cooling &EFI	20
Figure A3-I. Time (Minutes after Shutdown)	2
Figure A3-2. Time (Minutes after Shutdown)	3
Figure A3-3. Time (Minutes after Shutdown)	3
Figure A13-1. Temperature-Time Relationship for Burns [2]	7

                                 LIST OF TABLES
                                                                                Page
Table 1. EPA Phase 3 Concept Emission Standards	5
Table 2. Summary of Attachment 2 Photographs	 6
Table 3. Projected Phase 3 Engine Characteristics for the FMEA	12
Table 4. Severity Ranking Definitions	18
Table 5. Occurrence Ranking Definitions	18 .
Table 6. FMEA Systems Evaluated	20
Table 7. Class I Safety FMEA Items	24
Table 8. Class II Safety FMEA Items....	29
Table 9. Refueling Process FMEA	35
Table 10. Shutdown and Storage Process FMEA	39
Table 11. Maintenance Process FMEA	43
Table A3 -1.  Muffler temperature Field Soak Data vs. Time....	1
Table A13-1.  Ignition Temperatures of Various Materials [3]	2
Table A13-2.  Typical Values of the Minimum Auto-Ignition Temperature for Flammable Gases
      and Vapors'41	3
Table A13-3.  Piloted Ignition Temperatures of Various Woods ^.....,	3
Table A13-4.  Tube Furnace Tests for the Auto-Ignition Temperature of Cellulose Filter Paper[5]
      	4
Table A13-5.  Auto-Ignition of Filter Paper from Hot-Air Blower[5]	4
Table A13-6.  Hotplate Ignition Temperature of Some Fabrics[5]	5
Table AI3-7.  Auto-Ignition of Cotton Fabric From a Hot-Air Blower [5]	5
Table A13-8.  Hot Surface Ignition Temperatures for Carpets[51	5
Table A13-9.  Flammability Limits, Quenching Distances, and Minimum Ignition Energies For
      Various Fuels '3> 51	6
Table A13-10. Effects of Thermal Radiation [4]	6
                                         VI

-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS
ASTM
ANSI
ASAE
C
CEC
CFR
CO
CPSC
ECM
EEC
EGO
EFI
EPA
F
FMEA
HC
ISO
INDP
IPII
kg
MAP
NEISS
NFIRS
NFPA
NOX
NMMA
NVFEL
O2
OEM
OHV
RPN
SAE
SI
SwRI®
sv
TBOJI
Tia
tia
USDA
o
Omax
American Society for Testing and Materials
American National Standards Institute
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
Centigrade
Coordinating European Council
Code of Federal Regulations
Carbon Monoxide
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Engine Control Module
European Economic Community
Exhaust-Gas-Oxygen
Electronic Fuel Injection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fahrenheit
Failure Mode and Effects Analyses
Hydrocarbon
International Standards Organization
In-Depth Investigations
Injury/Potential Injury Incident File
Kilogram
Manifold Absolute Pressure)
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
National Fire Incident Reporting System
National Fire Protection Association
Nitrous Oxide
National Marine Manufacturers Association)
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
Oxygen
Original Equipment Manufacturer
Overhead Valve
Risk Priority Number
Society of Automotive Engineers
Spark Ignited
Southwest Research Institute*1
Side Valve
Boiling Temperature
Ignition Temperature
Ignition Time
United States Department of Agriculture
Degree
Equivalence Ratio
              Vll

-------
1.0    INTRODUCTION

       The U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency (EPA)  issued  Work  Assignment  1-10,
"Design/Conduct FMEAs  for  Small SI  Equipment  and Engines" to  Southwest Research
Institute® (SwRI®) to analyze the potential safety impact of new emission standards, which are
expected to result in the use of exhaust catalysts and evaporative emissions control systems on
small spark-ignited (SI) engines (<19kW).  Please see Attachment 1 for  the work assignment
details.  The overall  product population in this market is dominated by  walk-behind mowers
(Class I) and ride-on (Class II) lawn and garden equipment.  Based on the Consumer Product
Safety Commission's National  Electronic  Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) database from
2000 through 2004 there were  significantly more thermal burns associated with lawn mowers
than for generators and power washers. The CPSC recall database for the  same period also
included many more recalls for fire and burn associated with lawn and garden equipment than
any other product.  Consequently, the walk-behind and ride-on mower engines represented the
primary focus of this study.

       The objective of this work assignment was to design and perform  Failure Mode and
Effects Analyses (FMEA) on Class I and Class II engine systems. The FMEA technique is an
industry-accepted tool that is used to assess product risk associated with potential failure modes.
This FMEA study was focused on identifying and assessing the potential  incremental safety
impact between the current engine products that meet the Phase 2 emission standards, and future
engine designs for expected Phase  3 emission standards. It is  expected  that a  number of
improvements  in engine design including air-fuel ratio control and a catalyst will be utilized to
meet Phase 3 emissions standards. SwRI has conducted a Design FMEA with the existing Phase
2 product (current production models) compared to the expected Phase 3 product. The analyzed
configurations  of Phase 3 products were based on  Phase 2 engine models that  have been
modified 'by the EPA to meet the new emissions requirements. The modifications are listed in
Table 3.                                   ,  '    .

       The SwRI FMEA team represents 100 years of experience in engine design, development
and testing. The expertise used in the assessment of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 products included:
engineering judgment, engineering expertise, engine test experience with  this class of product,
previous experience  applying catalysts to this type of product, review of Phase 3 engine
prototypes and data from the EPA, review of data from the CPSC, and personal knowledge of the
product from a consumer perspective.

       The Work Assignment included four main tasks:

Task 1:

       SwRI was to select a team of experts and define the approach to be taken to conduct the
FMEA assessments.  The team was selected and the approach was to use the Design and Process
FMEA methods as a guide for the subsequent analysis.

Task 2:
                                                                            (
       SwRI presented an overall plan that described how the FMEA would be conducted. SwRI
reviewed the catalyst concepts and  data for the tests conducted by the EPA that evaluated

-------
catalyst-equipped prototype engines and equipment. EPA provided engineering expertise that
assisted in this analysis process. The CPSC provided product safety information from multiple
databases which was helpful during the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) study. Brief
descriptions of these databases are indicated below:

   •      CPSC's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) is comprised of a
          sample of hospitals that are statistically representative of hospital emergency rooms
          nationwide. From the data collected, estimates can be made of the numbers of injuries
          associated with consumer products and treated in hospital emergency departments.

   •      CPSC's  In-Depth Investigations  (INDP)  file contains  summaries  of reports  of
          investigations into events surrounding product-related injuries or incidents. Based on
          victim/witness interviews, the reports provide details about incident sequence, human
          behavior, and product involvement.

   •      CPSC's Injury/Potential Injury Incident File (IPII)  contains summaries,  indexed by
          consumer product, of Hotline reports, product-related newspaper accounts, reports
          from medical examiners, and letters to CPSC.

   •      The National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) is a database of fires attended
          by the fire service. NFIRS provides data at the product level and is not a probability
          sample. The information from the NFIRS database is weighted up to the National Fire
          Protection Association  (NFPA) survey to provide  national annual  product-level
          estimates.

   •      In addition the SwRI team had access to the recall summaries posted at CPSC's
          public website.

Task 3:

       SwRI conducted an FMEA considering multiple engines and pieces of equipment. The
FMEA was performed  for the Phase 2 and prototype Phase 3 small-spark ignited (SI) engines
and related equipment.  This was performed for  both Class I and Class II engines. The analysis
was based on the SwRI FMEA team's knowledge of Phase 2 products and the Phase 3 hardware
configurations provided by EPA.  Three Process FMEAs were also  performed, to assess the
potential increase in safety impact associated with the use of the lawncare equipment. The
FMEA team included staff from EPA and CPSC, as well as SwRI.

Task 4:

       The final report is presented as the primary task requirement that was generated from the
FMEAs. Future presentations by SwRI in support of this project will be provided as requested
by EPA.

-------
2.0    FMEA BACKGROUND/DESCRIPTION

       The Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is one of many quality improvement
techniques that have been developed and successfully applied in industry over the last 40 years.
The FMEA process focuses on potential failures and the resulting effects, and is recommended
by a number of U.S. and International Standards  organizations.   The FMEA is a tool  that
systematically evaluates potential product hazards, effects, and the likelihood of those potential
hazards occurring.  It also provides a systematic means for estimating risk.  The FMEA guide
used throughout this study was the SAE standard, J1739.  This analysis was conducted using the
Design FMEA and Process FMEA formats.

       The methodology of a Design FMEA has four primary  aspects: (1) use  of a systematic
approach and sound engineering judgment to anticipate how and how often a particular design
could fail to perform its intended function, (2) identification of the likely consequences of the
failures, (3) to clearly identify the critical failure modes, and (4) to identify the actions necessary
(typically controlled  by the manufacturer) to eliminate or reduce  the risk associated with the
potential failure modes.

       The Process FMEA technique is similar to that described for the Design FMEA except
that the Process FMEA addresses how and how often processes can fail to result in the intended
outcome, rather than how and how often components can fail to perform the intended function.

       A FMEA is conducted by a team  of people  (typically 4 to 6 members),  and  is not
effective if the FMEA is  completed by  a single person. The selection of the members of the
team is important. The team should consist of cross-functional members; if possible, to promote
a variety of perspectives.  The most effective FMEA teams are comprised of members who have
technical knowledge of the subject, and who are willing to participate in open discussions and be
willing to accept team consensus to reach the best assessment.  The team leader is typically a
process leader and  facilitator of the FMEA. Typically, the FMEA  process is used to identify a
wide  range  of product  problems including  performance,  safety, durability, and  other user
satisfaction issues.   This  study focused on the incremental  safety impact associated with the
application of catalysts to small SI engines and equipment.

       As with any tool, there are limitations to the  FMEA process. The FMEA process is very
detailed, to the point of being tedious and time consuming when complex  systems are being
analyzed. The FMEA technique deals primarily with single point failures, and usually does not
address the effect of combinations of failures.  It is  important to capture  all of the practical
failure modes, while avoiding highly improbable failure modes that are of minimal consequence.

-------
3.0    THE SWRI APPROACH FOR THE SMALL ENGINE FMEA PROJECT

A.     FMEA Team Make-up

       The team  selection is critical for an FMEA process.  The  SwRI  team was selected
considering the knowledge and expertise required for conducting the subject FMEA,   Team
members are engineers and have the technical skills required for the task.  In addition, the team
members have skills  beyond the requisite technical skills which  allow a broader view of the
problem.

       The SwRI FMEA team consisted of four core team members and one reviewer. All are
experienced SwRI staff members. Brief resumes are included below:
          t
Jeff White (Core Team):  Mr.  White has been contributing  to the development of cleaner
engines-and vehicles  for over 25 years. Mr. White has performed emission research programs
for a wide range of applications including light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty truck and bus engines,
and many types of small and nonroad engines. Jeff and his colleagues have performed numerous
studies on small engines, focusing principally on development of strategies  and technologies to
reduce emissions. Work has addressed both 2-stroke and 4-stroke  designs, as well as diesel and
alternative-fueled engines.

Tom Boberg (Core Team): Mr. Boberg is the FMEA team leader,  facilitator and an experienced
FMEA process user.  He has 27 years experience with the design, development and production
release of engines. He currently is Manager of the Gas and Large Engine Section at SwRI.  Tom
has previously participated in several dozen of Design and Process FMEA analyses over the last
13 years as a participant, leader and facilitator.

Jim Carroll (Core Team):  Mr. Carroll  has 25 years experience in off-highway engines and
emissions testing.  He has managed projects for engine certification, emissions development,
catalyst development, component  durability,  emissions reduction and test cycle  procedure
development. He has worked with off-road engines for 15 years and has participated in baseline
studies  for regulatory agencies, and  emission reduction strategy  development and  engine
certification.

Kevin Castile (Core Team):  Mr. Castile has over 23 years of experience in the engine lubricants
industry.  He is currently the Project  Manager of the Leisure Marine  and Small Engine
Lubricants Section. Over the last seven years he has authored, co-authored, and updated industry
standard lubricant specifications for ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), CEC
(Coordinating  European Council),  ISO  (International  Standards Organization), and NMMA
(National Marine Manufacturers Association).

Barry Badders (Reviewer):  Mr. Badders has a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering
with an emphasis on thermal systems, heat transfer and fluid dynamics.  Mr. Badders will be
obtaining his Masters Degree in Fire Protection Engineering from the University of Maryland in
May 2006. After obtaining his undergraduate degree, he worked  as a consultant for 4.5  years,
during which time he received his  Professional Engineer's License  in the state of Texas and

-------
Florida. Mr.  Badders works in the  Southwest  Research Institute's  Department of  Fire
Technology as a group leader responsible for the Engineering and Research Section. His job
functions include fire modeling using computational fluid dynamics and finite element methods.
He also conducts research and  customized  testing to study the effects of fire and related
phenomena.
B.
Cases to be studied
      The purpose of this Work Assignment was to identify and assess incremental safety
impact between the current, Phase 2 versions of a number of small SI equipment/engines, and the
same  equipment and engines that have  been modified  to  meet Phase 3 concept emission
standards. As part of their technology assessment work, EPA modified a number of OEM Phase
2 engine and equipment configurations in such a manner that they met the exhaust emission
standards being considered by EPA staff. The emission standards that are under consideration by
EPA are shown in Table 1, below.
                  Table 1. EPA Phase 3 Concept Emission Standards
Exhaust Emissions

Class I
Class II
Classes 3-5
HC+NOX*
g/kW-hr
10.0
8.0
No Changes
CO
g/kW-hr
610
610

Year
2010
2011

Useful Life
(hours)
125/250/500
250/500/1000

*HC+NOx standard is based on averaging; new standards would not apply to snow equipment.
Evaporative Controls

Hose and Tank
Permeation
Running Loss
Class I
2009
2010
Class II
2009
2011
Classes 3-5
2009
n/a
Standard
15g/mA2&1.5
g/mA2
Design/Test
    •  Following the initial meeting with the EPA, the scope  of the FMEA was refined to
include conducting two Design FMEAs and three Process FMEAs.  The Design FMEAs focused
on potential subsystem/component failures of Class I and Class  II lawn mower products.  The
Process FMEAs relate to user activities of equipment refueling, equipment storage, and engine
maintenance.  These activities were supported by the detailed review of Class I and Class II,
Phase 2,  and  prototype Phase 3 engines and equipment available at the EPA in Ann Arbor,
Michigan on October 3rd and 4th 2005.  The  equipment that was reviewed is listed in Table 2.
Table 2 is a summary of Attachment 2 which  presents photographs of production, Phase 2, lawn
and garden equipment and prototype Phase 3 engines and modified equipment. Figures A2-1
through A2-24 shows Class I engines, catalysts, mufflers, and equipment; Figures A2-25 through
A2-41  show Class II engines, catalysts, mufflers, and equipment.  These images document the
design changes implemented by the EPA in the course of their Phase 3 design impact analysis.

-------
Table 2. Summary of Attachment 2 Photographs
Figure
No.
A2-1
A2-2
A2-3
A2-4
A2-5
A2-6
A2-7
A2-8
A2-9
A2-10
A2-11
A2-12
A2-13
A2-14
A2-15
A2-16
A2-17
A2-18
A2-19
A2-20
Figure - Title
Stock Briggs Quantum Side Valve Complete
Engine
Stock Briggs Quantum European Catalytic
Muffler,
Stock Briggs Quantum SV Close-Up Of
Front Of European Catalytic Muffler
Stock Briggs Quantum SV Close-Up Of
Back Of European Catalytic Muffler
Stock Briggs Quantum SV European
Catalytic Muffler Shroud
Stock Briggs Quantum SV European
Catalytic Muffler Interior
Stock Briggs Quantum SV Center European
Catalytic Muffler Interior With Substrate
Removed
Stock Briggs Quantum SV European
Catalytic Muffler Supplemental Air Venturi
Stock Honda GVC 160 Without Muffler
Stock Honda GVC 160 Muffler With Shroud
EPA Prototype Catalyzed Muffler In Shroud
For Honda GVC 160
EPA Prototype Muffler With Exhaust Gas
Cooling Air Ejector Around Exhaust For
Honda GVC 160
EPA Prototype Muffler Air Ejection Tube
For Honda GVC 160
EPA Prototype Muffler Ceramic Substrate
For Honda GVC 160
Tube Catalyst For Insertion In Exhaust Port
Prototype Low Cell Density Metal Substrate
Catalyst
Wire Mesh Catalyst In Muffler
Wire Mesh Catalyst Removed From Muffler
Stock Honda GVC 160 Mower
Briggs QUANTUM SV With Briggs
European Catalyzed Muffler
Notes
Purchased locally by EPA
Three stamped steel parts, plus mat-wrapped
ceramic catalyst (400cpsi, 20 cc)
Muffler is direct replacement for non-
catalyzed muffler, available from Briggs
distributors. Note Briggs logo on right.
Supplemental air inlets are visible.
Outlet side of muffler.
Center stamping and catalyst.
Center stamping with catalyst removed
showing catalyst and wrap
Venturi is formed at supplemental air inlet.
Muffler located at exhaust port connection
helps homogenize exhaust gas mixture.
Cooling air flow directed toward muffler by
upper block casting.
Muffler with air cooling shroud and touch
guard.
Prototype catalyzed muffler and shroud. Air
injection by internal venturi with air in
through external pipe.
Ejector tube around exhaust outlet draws
cooling air across outlet though exhaust flow
dynamics.
Cooling air ejector tube.
Ceramic substrate encased in steel mounting
support.
First low surface area controls catalyst
activity, reduces plugging, and reduces cost.
Low cell density controls exothermic
reactions.
Metal mesh substrate controls catalytic
activity, and reduces plugging.
Substrate removed showing support structure
in muffler.
Purchased locally by EPA.
Briggs engine with muffler from Fig. 2 plus
touch shield. Additional catalyst, spark
arrestor, and exhaust flow diffuser added to
muffler

-------
A2-21
A2-22
A2-23
A2-24
A2-25
A2-26
A2-27
A2-28
A2-29
A2-30
A2-31
A2-32
A2-33
A2-34
A2-35
A2-36
A2-37
A2-38
A2-39
A2-40
Briggs Intek OHV Engine With Dual
Substrate European Muffler And Cooling Air
Duct
Stock Briggs Intek OHV Engine With Stock
Muffler
Stock Tecumseh LV195EA
Briggs Dual Metallic Substrate European
Muffler On Tecumseh LV195EA
Stock Kawasaki FH 60 ID
Stock Kawasaki FH 60 ID Muffler
Kawasaki FH 60 ID With Air Injection &
Catalyst
Triple Pass Catalyst With Double Wall
fabricated by EPA.
Stock Muffler for Kohler CV490 With
Inserted Catalyst
Stock Muffler for Kohler CV490 With
Inserted Catalyst
High Efficiency Dual Catalyst Ahead Of
Muffler fabricated by EPA.
Briggs Intek OHV 3 1P777 Showing No Head
Cooling Fins
Kohler CH26 With Stock Muffler Without
Catalyst, With EFI With EGO Sensor
Feedback
Kohler Catalyzed Muffler For CH26 EFI
Engine With Feedback EGO Sensor
Prototype Briggs 31P777 Intek with Oil
Cooler
Prototype Briggs 31P777 Intek With Air
Ducted To Catalyst Muffler with open loop
EFI
Prototype Briggs 31 P777 Intek Close-Up Of
ECU & Fuel Injector
Stock Briggs 31 P777 Intek on Riding Mower
Stock Kohler CV490 Riding Mower
Kohler CV490 Riding Mower With
Catalyzed Muffler & Modified Shroud
Cooling & EFI
EPA prototype catalyzed muffler. Additional
catalyst added to muffler. Shroud at top of
muffler to divert cooling air behind muffler.
Purchased locally by EPA.
Purchased locally by EPA.
Catalyzed muffler purchased from Briggs in
Europe.
Purchased locally by EPA
Stock muffler for comparison to Fig. 27.
EPA prototype catalyzed muffler. Air
injection tube at top center. Secondary air is
injected between two Palladium Rhodium
converters.
Double wall reduces surface temperature and
fire and burn risk.
Stock Class 11 muffler modified with catalyst
and then re-assembled.
Stock Class II muffler modified with catalyst
and then re-assembled.
Class II muffler modified by attaching dual
catalyst ahead of muffler.
Head cooling achieved through conduction
from cylinder, plus air convection. Note tight
shrouding around cylinder to duct cooling air.
EGO (Exhaust Gas Oxygen) Closed-loop
air/fuel ratio control system added to engine.
Catalyzed muffler for Kohler in Fig. 33 with
oxygen sensor.
Stock engine had HOC oil temperature.(no
cooling fins on head). Oil cooler (thermostat
opens @ 1 10 °C) added to reduce high
temperature in order to age 250 hour motor to
500 hours.
Additional shrouding ducts the cooling air
from the engine past exhaust system, and
reduces debris collection.
ECU and fuel injector from Asian motorcycle.
The Intake manifold modified by EPA to
accept injector.
Purchased locally by EPA.
Purchased locally by EPA.
Additional shrouding ducts cooling air from
engine past the exhaust system, to reduce
debris collection.
       Prototype Phase 3 engines were developed by EPA to demonstrate that small SI engines
can meet tighter emission standards at reasonable cost without an incremental increase in safety

-------
risk. To that end, four Class I engines were chosen which represent 75 percent of the market's
sales, and two Class II engines were chosen which represent 25 percent of the market. The Class
II engine market is not dominated by a few sales leaders as is the case with Class I engines. EPA
chose a variety of engines that included side-valve (SV) and overhead-valve (OHV) designs,
low- and high-cost engines, and both residential-use and commercial-use engines.

       During the course of EPA's technology assessment, it investigated a range of engine
control and aftertreatment technologies to reduce emissions.  These included the application of
alternative catalytic  converter substrates  such as ceramic (Figures A2-7 and A2-14), wire mesh
(Figures A2-17), metal tube (Figure A2-15), and metal foil (Figure A2-16).  The substrates were
coated with a range of washcoat materials and noble metal loadings to control emission reduction
efficiency and exhaust system temperature.

       One of the catalytic converters tested was a production design from the European market
(Figure A2-3). The rest of the test catalytic converters were fabricated and installed by EPA after
modifying a production muffler (Figures  A2-13 for Class I and A2-29 for Class II) or by placing
the catalyst ahead of the production muffler (Figure A2-31).

       EPA's criteria for choosing catalyst formulations included:

             minimize heat rejection
             provide appropriate level of emission control  and durability
             minimize cost

       Catalytic converters are exothermic (gives off heat).  The addition of a catalyst increases
the total  mass of the exhaust system and will retain heat. With this being considered, the EPA
objective for Phase  3 engines was that prototype exhaust system designs was  to control surface
temperatures to the current Phase 2 engine temperature levels. Infrared imaging equipment was
used to measure both production and prototype engine surface temperatures during operation in
the laboratory, in the field, and after the engines were turned off.

       Thermal  images  and  temperature levels  measured  by  the  imaging  equipment were
supplied to the FMEA team by EPA. These data showed that several prototype Phase 3 systems
exhibited much  lower peak surface temperatures during operation and hot soak than current
Phase 2 systems. Peak temperatures are important because they represent the point of greatest
risk for fire and bum.          x

       Noble metals used by catalyst manufacturers to promote emission reduction include
platinum (Pt), palladium  (Pd), and rhodium  (Rh).  The catalyst reduction efficiencies are  a
function of a number of variables including: catalyst formulation, exhaust gas composition, the
exhaust gas temperature, and the  exhaust gas flow rate. The catalyst operating  temperature is
dictated  by the  reduction efficiency.  Carbon  monoxide is oxidized within  the converter to
carbon dioxide in the presence of oxygen. Since these engines have higher concentrations of CO
than HC or NOx, the CO conversion is  the primary source of exotherm in the exhaust system.
The EPA's study found that a  loading ratio of Pt:Pd:Rh of 1:3:1 had an advantage  in reducing the
peak temperature due to CO conversion.  About one-half of the final prototype exhaust systems

-------
used catalysts with a 1:3:1 ratio and the other half of the converters used catalysts with a 3:1:1
ratio.

       Small air-cooled engines such as these tend to run with combustion mixtures or air/fuel
ratios which are fuel rich. This means that there is more fuel than required for the volume of
combustion air drawn  into the engine.  The excess fuel keeps combustion temperatures low
because it acts as a heat sink much like a mist. In the engine, most of the oxygen is consumed
through combustion. Without  sufficient oxygen in the exhaust, a catalyst cannot completely
oxidize hydrocarbons or carbon monoxide. Although reducing the  amount of fuel (enleanment)
introduced into the engine would free more oxygen, the higher operating temperatures resulting
from leaner operation could adversely affect engine durability. Therefore, EPA investigated the
use of both passive and active  supplemental air systems, which added air to the exhaust before
the catalyst.   Passive supplemental air systems rely on an integral venturi in the exhaust pipe to
drawn in  ambient air (Figure  A2-4 and A2-8 show ambient air  inlets and venturi  location).
Active systems use a pump to force air into the exhaust system (Figures A2-11 and A2-27 show
a supplemental  air tube into the muffler). However, as the Table 3 definition of Class II engines
shows, supplemental air is not required for Class II catalyst systems.

       Supplementing efforts to reduce surface temperatures, EPA also investigated designs to
reduce the likelihood of debris, such as grass cuttings, accumulating on or near the  prototype
exhaust systems. Cooling system air  was ducted to  flow additional air  around the exhaust
system, and  larger ducting channels were  included to reduce plugging of the cooling air flow
passages by debris.

       EPA investigated exhaust system temperature control using various methods, as follows:

    1)     Some of the catalytic converters were placed within production mufflers close to the
          muffler's inlet to produce a larger cooling volume after the converter.
    2)     Some of the mufflers had internal baffles added to redirect the exhaust flow along a
          longer path before exiting the muffler.
    3)     The  catalyst coatings were designed for lower reduction  efficiencies that still met the
          potential emission standards, but did not create an excessive exothermic reaction as
          often occurs with high CO conversion efficiencies.
    4)     The  catalyst surface area was controlled by using  small catalysts (Figure A2-14) or
          catalysts with low cell density (Figures A2-15, A2-16, and A2-17).
    5)     Simple shrouds were placed around the muffler similar to production systems (Figure
          A2-10) or double walls were  added around the muffler (Figure A2-28).
    6)     More elaborate cooling systems were also utilized which ducted engine cooling air
          around the  catalyzed  muffler  (Figures A2-21  and A2-24, note the non-shrouded
          equipment in Figure A2-23), or shrouded and  ducted cooling air around the whole
          exhaust system (Figures A2-36 and A2-40,  note  the  non-shrouded equipment in
          Figure A2-39).
    7)     An exhaust flow diffuser was incorporated at the muffler outlet to direct hot exhaust
          (Figures A2-20 and A2-21).
    8)     EPA mounted an ejector around the exhaust pipe at the  muffler exit (Figure A2-12).
          By placing an open-ended shroud around the  exhaust pipe, the ejector utilizes the

-------
          exhaust flow within the shroud to draw cooling air from the other end of the ejector.
          The ejector thus rapidly cools the muffler's surface and its exhaust gases, and shrouds
          the hot exhaust pipe exit.

       EPA installed fuel injection  systems  on three Class II engines (Figures A2-33, A2-35,
and A2-40). The fuel injection systems replaced the carburetors on these engines with a throttle
body to control air flow, and a small injector and engine control module (ECM) from an Asian
moped.  The ECM controls the fuel injector flow by measuring engine speed and the  intake
manifold pressure, and then looking up the correct fuel flow from an internal data table. The
ECM system also has the capability to be operated in closed-loop  control by sensing the exhaust
oxygen level with an exhaust-gas-oxygen (EGO) sensor in the exhaust pipe (Figure A2-34 at top
left).   The EGO sensor signals the ECM when the air/fuel mixture is  leaner or  richer than
stoichiometry  (exact air-fuel mixture for complete  combustion)  and the fuel injector flow  is
adjusted by the ECM to add or subtract fuel accordingly.  The use of fuel injection systems was
only investigated with  larger Class  II engines because of higher cost, and because the larger
engines have cooling systems which are more effective in controlling the increased  combustion
temperatures due to enleanment.  This  analysis  does consider  carbureted engines, however,
prototypes were not available at the time of this report.

C.     Definitions and Constraints for this study

       The Phase 2, Class I and Class II engines and equipment in this study were defined to be
typical of current non-catalyst, production, consumer products.  "Typical" in this case means the
product has average features and performance.  The team  used  this definition throughout the
analysis.

       It was  useful for the team and the FMEA review process to clearly define  the specific
characteristics of Class I and Class II product. This was accomplished by listing the major
differences between Class I and the Class  II products.   The differences between  small spark
ignited, Class  II engines (equal to or greater than 225 cubic centimeters displacement and less
than  19 kilowatts  of  rated power) and Class I engines  (less than 225 cubic  centimeters
displacement and less than 19 kilowatts of rated power) include:

    1.     The Class II engine is larger in physical size.
    2.     The Class II engine has higher power.
    3.     The Class II  engine has a wider range of quality in design, materials, fuel lines, fuel
          tanks, location of the fuel tank, engine, and mufflers.
    4.     The Class II engine intake manifolds are of higher quality and more robust.
    5.     The Class II engine exhaust system is more robust.
    6.     The Class II engine cylinder head temperatures are normally lower  in general.
          (exceptions: engines without cylinder head cooling fins)
    7.     The Class II engine cooling fins  are larger and  wider apart  which reduces the
          possibility of debris buildup.
    8.     The Class II engine heat rejection  from exhaust is substantial,  and may radiate  to
          ground.
                                           10

-------
   9.     The Class II engine mufflers are remotely mounted from engine, and closer to the
          ground than Class I designs.
   10.    The  Class  II engine  mufflers are often supplied by the equipment (not engine)
          manufacturer.
   11.    The Class  II engine carburetors are typically of higher quality and have a  wider
          functional range (low idle to rated power).
   12.    The Class II engine carburetors have idle fuel circuits, and altitude compensation.
   13.    The Class II engines are typically equipped with fuel cutoff solenoid in float bowl.
   14.    The  Class  II engine  can have automatic chokes on the  carburetors.  (Honda has
          mechanical timer, some use exhaust heat and a bi-metallic choke control)
   15.    The Class II engine will typically be of an over head valve (OHV) design.
   16.    Some Class  II  engines are  2-cylinder designs.   This means that the  engines can
          operate on one cylinder and be more prone to backfire.
   17.    The  Class  II equipment fuel tanks are often supplied  by  equipment (not engine)
          manufacturer.
   18.    The Class II equipment is more prone to accidental rollover. (Note: this is expected
          to be true, but intentional tipping of Class I equipment is very high for maintenance
          activity).
   19.    The Class II equipment has  more fuel capacity and more fuel is resident in the fuel
          system components.
   20.    The Class II engines are used on a wider range of equipment.
   21.    For two-cylinder, Class II engines, a loss of ignition in one  cylinder may overheat a
          catalyst if the engine continues to operate.
   22.    Class II engine fuel injection systems with a closed-loop control may be employed.
          (Westerbeke, and Kohler already  sell fuel-injected, CL-control generators  with
          catalysts.)
   23.    Most Class II engines have electric starters and alternators.
   24.    The  Class  II engines  are more durable and  most are  designed to be durable in
          commercial operation.
   25.    Some Class II engines have high pressure lubrication systems.
   26.    The  Class  II equipment, typically locates  the operator closer  to the  engine, (i.e.
          Riding mowers, and turf equipment).
   27.    The Class II equipment fuel tank can be remotely mounted from engine.

       In addition to the above  Class I and Class II information,  it was equally  important to
define the characteristics  of Phase 3 products. - A list of characteristics  was  created in co-
operation with EPA to more clearly describe the Class I and Class  II, Phase 3 products for this
study.  It is acknowledged that some of the characteristics listed in  Table 3 currently appear on
Phase  2 products,  but it was  projected  that  all Phase 3 engines  will  have these design,
manufacturing and quality improvements. This characterization  process was necessary  since
production Phase 3 engines and equipment are not yet available. The characteristics of Phase 3
products adopted for the purpose of conducting this study are shown  in Table 3.
                                           11

-------
Table 3. Projected Phase 3 Engine Characteristics for the FMEA
Item No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Class I Lawnmower Engine
Application of catalyst (moderate activity 30-
50%) designed to minimize CO oxidation,
maximize NOX reduction, with low HC
oxidation efficiency at high exhaust-flow-
rates and high HC oxidation efficiency at low-
exhaust flowrates. This design is expected to
minimize catalyst exotherm.
Cooling and shrouding of engine and muffler
to minimize surface temperatures. Use of heat
shielding and/or air-gap insulated exhaust
components to minimize surface
temperatures.
Design flow paths/baffles through the
mufflers to incorporate flame arresting design
features, to improve heat rejection to muffler
surfaces and to spread heat rejection over a
large surface area of the muffler. This will
reduce the incidence of backfire and reduce
localized hot spots.
Different catalyst substrates (ceramic, metal
monolith, hot tube, metal mesh) can be
successfully used.
The use of air ejectors to cool exhaust gases at
the muffler outlet and to improve cooling of
heat shielding.
Use of a small amount of passive
supplemental air to improve exhaust
chemistry at light load, but designed so bulk
exhaust remains rich of stoichiometry at all
conditions, and flow-limited at high exhaust
flowrates. This design minimizes risk of
excessive catalyst exotherm.
Use of fuel filter and/or improved design
needle and seat in carburetor to minimize
problems caused by fuel debris.
Improved intake manifold design to reduce
intake manifold leaks.
Cooling system designed to reduce the
accumulation of debris, including the use of a
mesh or screen on cooling fan inlet, when
lacking in current design.
Improved ignition system design to be more
reliable and durable than on Phase 2.
Improved component design and
manufacturing processes to reduce air-fuel
ratio production variability to stabilize engine
performance and emissions.
Locate fuel tanks away from heat sources.
Class II Ride-on Mower Engine
Application of catalyst (moderate activity 30-
50%) designed to minimize CO oxidation,
maximize NOx reduction, with low HC
oxidation efficiency at high exhaust flowrates
and high HC oxidation efficiency at low-
exhaust flowrates. This design is expected to
minimize catalyst exotherm.
Cooling and shrouding of engine and muffler
to minimize surface temperatures. Use of heat
shielding and/or air-gap insulated exhaust
components to minimize surface
temperatures.
Design flow paths/baffles through the
mufflers to incorporate flame arresting design
features, to improve heat rejection to muffler
surfaces and to spread heat rejection over a
large surface area of the muffler. This will
reduce the incidence of backfire and reduce
localized hot spots.
Different catalyst substrates (ceramic, metal
monolith, hot tube, mesh) can be successfully
used.
The use of air ejectors to cool exhaust gases at
the muffler outlet and to improve cooling of
heat shielding.
Use of carburetor recalibration to improve
exhaust chemistry at light load conditions.
Improved air/fuel ratio control through tighter
manufacturing tolerances to minimize
variation.
No anticipated design changes.
Cooling system designed to reduce the
accumulation of debris.
Improved ignition system design to be more
reliable and durable than on Phase 2.
Component changes are not expected.
Improved manufacturing processes to reduce
air-fuel ratio production variability to stabilize
engine performance and emissions.
Locate fuel tanks away from heat sources.
                            12

-------
13
14
15
16
17
IS
Use of carburetors with appropriate idle
circuits, float-bowl vent, and automatic choke
or improved primer bulb. This will improve
fuel system reliability.
Locate the exhaust port away from the
carburetor/fuel line to minimize carburetor
heating.
Improved exhaust system design and
materials for better durability and reliability.
Improved muffler/catalyst/equipment design
since currently, the muffler designs do not
incorporate catalysts.
Evaporative emission controls: hoses, tank,
cap, and evaporative emission control system.
As Needed: non-contact, bi-metal thermal
switch to disable ignition system to shut
engine down in event of excessive
temperature.
Use of carburetors with appropriate idle
circuits, float-bowl vent, and automatic
choke. This will improve fuel system
reliability.
No anticipated design changes.
No anticipated design changes.
Improved muffler/catalyst/equipment design
since currently, the muffler designs do not
incorporate catalysts.
Evaporative emission controls: hoses, tank,
cap, and evaporative emission control system.
As Needed: non-contact, bi-metal thermal
switch to disable ignition system to shut
engine down in event of excessive
temperature. Manufacturers will need to
consider the potential trade-off of disengaging
engine power on ride-on equipment if were to
occur on a slope.
D.    Sources of Data and Information

The FMEA study used several sources of information, as outlined below:

SwRI FMEA Team Member Experience:

      The team's personal and professional experience with the type of equipment being
analyzed  was used to conduct the  FMEA.  This included the creation of the FMEA report
formats. SwRI's staff and titles can be found in Section 3-A.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Staff Input

      Technical discussions and review of the available OEM and prototype hardware with
EPA provided the detailed technical information and insight that was necessary for the review.
Thermal test data of OEM and prototype hardware provided a basis for decisions on thermal
issues. A sample and a brief discussion of the thermal image data provided by EPA are shown in
Attachment 3. EPA staff also acted as a consultation team to the FMEA tables and report.

      The EPA NVFEL staff members assisting with the FMEA include: Glenn Passavant -
Non-Road Center Director; Joe McDonald - Mechanical Engineer, NVFEL; and Cheryl Caffrey
- Mechanical Engineer, NVFEL

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)  Staff Input

      CPSC staff provided real-world scenarios of operator burns and fires associated with
spark-ignition lawn mowers. Four databases were used to compile the data; the U.S. Consumer
                                         13

-------
Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), Injury
and  Potential  Injury  Incidents (IPII),  In-Depth Investigations (INDP) and  the  U.S.  Fire
Administrator's National  Fire Incident Reporting System  (NFIRS). Where possible, the data
spanned a five-year period, 2000 - 2004. CPSC staff also provided review and input to the
FMEA tables and report. The CPSC Directorate for Engineering Sciences staff assisting with the
FMEA include -Susan Bathalon, Mechanical Engineer, John Murphy, Mechanical Engineer, and
Sarah Brown, Engineering Psychologist in the Human Factors Division.

References:

       SwRI performed  a literature  search to  identify  documents related  to  this study.
Attachment 4 lists the documents found in the literature search. These documents were reviewed
by the team  to identify current safety specifications for small off road engines (< 19 kW).  The
information in these references was used by the team to:

   1.     Identify the maximum allowable  operating temperatures in available standards and
          guidelines:

          •  Consumer Turf Care Equipment:
                 o  "A  guard or shield shall be provided to prevent inadvertent contact with
                    any exposed  components  that are 'hot'  and may cause burns during
                    normal starting and operation of the machine"  from ANSI B71.1

                 o  "All surface which exceed 65.5° C (150° F) at 21° C (70°  F) ambient and
                    which  might be  contacted by  the operator  during normal  starting,
                    mounting; operating or refueling shall be indicated by a safety sign located
                    on or adjacent to the surface." From ASAE S440.3

          •  Commercial Turf Care Equipment:
                 o  "Lawn and garden equipment requires a shield if temperatures exceed 90
                    °C for  non-metallic surfaces and 80° C for metallic surfaces" for ANSI
                    B71.4;
                 o  "Hot  surfaces  (engine,  hydraulic,  transmissions, etc.)  that exceed a
                    temperature of 90° C (194° F)  for nonmetallic surfaces, or 80° C (176° F)
                    for metallic parts while operating at 21° C (70° F)"  for ANSI B71.4;

          •  Multi-position Small Engine (handheld engine):
                 o  "Temperatures shall not exceed  550° F for exposed surfaces and 475° F
                    for  exhaust gases" per USDA Forest Service Standard 5100-1 as tested
                    under SAE J335 test procedure).

NOTE: This search did not  locate a mandatory standard which defined temperature limits for
surfaces on consumer lawn and garden equipment. The standards listed above are voluntary
only.  There are regulations/guidelines for spark arresters used in off-highway vehicles  (SAE
J35Q, SAEJ342), handheld equipment engines (SAEJ335) and other small engines.
                                          14

-------
    2.     Identify the control volume used for the Design FMEA studies (see Attachment 7 for
           this study's Control Volume).

    3.     Identify how previous equipment safety documents were related to this FMEA study;
           surface temperatures, debris fires, and safe handling and operation. (See Attachment
           4).

    4.     Identify the current safety concerns of regulatory and standard setting organizations
           relative to sparks, surface temperatures, fire suppression, noise, operator safety and
           test procedures.

        The  literature search  information  allowed  the team  to understand  the different
 perspectives that exist when considering product safety. Attachment 13 discusses: (1) auto
 ignition;  (2) what constitutes a fire;  (3)  what constitutes a burn (temperature, material and
' exposure.

 E.      FMEA Process and Documentation Structure

        The typical FMEA process is defined in detail in SAE standard 1739. In an effort to help
 the reader understand the mechanics and structure of the FMEA process, a summary explanation
 is provided below.

        The FMEA process is not rigidly dictated. There is considerable leeway for the FMEA
 team to deviate from the SAE standard in order to best suit the requirements of a specific review.
 In the case  of this Work Assignment FMEA, the team created a worksheet format structure, and
 developed a ranking  process that was  appropriate  for the study of Class I and  Class II lawn
 mower engines from a safety perspective.

        In Attachment 5, a typical Design FMEA worksheet format is presented. This format is
 similar to the Design FMEA worksheet format that is shown as an example in the SAE standard
 1739.  Attachment 6  presents the worksheet format that the FMEA team chose for this study.
 When comparing the two examples, several differences can  be  seen, and these  are explained
 below:

 Column Positions:

        The column positions of the worksheet were modified considerably for this study. The
 team felt that the resulting format was easier to follow.

 Added Columns:

        The worksheet (Attachment 6) included a Contributing Cause column to assist the team
 in the evaluation process.  In some cases, a secondary cause was identified, but in other cases a
 primary cause was felt to be sufficient.  The addition of the Contributing Cause information does
 not alter the fact that the FMEA only addresses single point failures as previously discussed in
 Section 2 above. Since the study was to evaluate the incremental differences between Phase 2
                                           15

-------
and Phase 3 equipment, ranking columns were added for both phases.  In effect, both a Phase 2
FMEA and a Phase 3 FMEA were performed within each Design FMEA  process for both the
walk-behind and ride-on mowers.

       To classify the Effects  of the failure modes, a "Classification of Effect' column was
added to distinguish between (1) Safety, (2) Regulatory, (3) Performance, and (4) Other Effects.

       Severity, Occurrence and Risk Priority Number columns were added for Phase 3 engines
to provide a side-by-side comparison with Phase 2 engines.  Finally, a column was added to
show the difference between the Phase 2 and the Phase 3 RPN (RPN Delta).

Deleted Columns

       The Detection value column was deleted from  the  FMEAs.   Detection  is  useful
principally in FMEAs where the team that is responsible for the analysis has direct knowledge of
their organizations' ability to detect design problems before the product is released to the market.
In the case of this Work Assignment,  the team is composed of people that are independent of any
specific engine manufacturer. Consequently, direct understanding of the detection process was
limited. Detection also can differ considerably among Class I and Class II engine manufacturers
and equipment OEM's. Further,  if  Detection were to be utilized, the team  decided that all
detection numbers would have to be the same by default, due to the limited knowledge of and the
variance  among manufacturers' processes.  Therefore, removing the Detection ranking number
from the  process had no effect on the relative Risk Priority Number rankings. As a result, it was
decided that the ranking parameter of Detection would not be considered, and would not be part
of the FMEA analysis or the FMEA worksheet.

       To understand the FMEA  process, it is important to understand the definitions  of the
terms used.

    1.     Risk Priority Number (RPN): This is one of the primary output of the FMEA process.
          The RPN value is the product  of the  ranking values.  In this study, the RPN is the
          product of the Severity Ranking and the Occurrence Ranking (S x O = RPN). The
          RPN is used to classify the failure modes to help identify which modes are likely to
          be the most serious. In industry the RPN values from the FMEA would be used to
          direct the efforts to make improvements to the product or  process (The corrective
          action is typically targeted for completion prior to production release of the product in
          question).  A  high failure mode RPN does not always suggest a high occurrence.
          When failure modes are associated with Effects (see item 4 below)  that have  a high
          Severity ranking (see 5 below)  the RPN suggests that if the failure mode does occur
          (no matter how remote),  a serious consequence potentially could result.  Typically,
          any FMEA line item  with a severity ranking of 9 or 10  requires that a study be
          conducted to assess how  the potential failure mode that could result in the serious
          consequences could be mitigated.
                                          16

-------
    2.     Potential Failure mode: A means by which a component, subsystem or system could
          potentially fail.   In the typical FMEA process the definition of failure modes is a
          speculative process and defines a failure that "could" happen.

    3.     Potential Cause:  This is the identification of the potential cause of the failure mode.
          This  is often an  indication of a potential component  or  system design flaw or
          weakness which leads to a failure of the subsystem or system to  perform the intended
          function.  The failure could be due to a direct failure of the component or system, or
          could be caused by external factors. There should be at least one cause identified for
          each potential failure mode. In some cases, a contributing cause was identified, but in
          other cases a primary cause was felt'to be sufficient.

    4.     Potential Effects of Failure: The potential effects of the failure  are the results of the
          component, subsystem or system failing to perform the intended  function.  Safety
          effects should be explicitly identified. EPA field data and CPSC real world incidents
          were  helpful in identifying some potential effects of failure.   There is usually the
          potential of multiple effects associated with  each potential  failure mode, including
          "no effect".

    5.     Severity:   This is a ranking  parameter  which  is an assessment of the relative
          seriousness of an effect for any failure mode. Typically, the range of ranking  values
          is between 1  and 10 (never zero). Each effect needs to be ranked for severity.  Table
          4 presents the definitions used in this analysis for the Severity Ranking. In this study
          the effect "burn risk" was assigned a severity ranking of 9; the effect: "increased risk
          of fire or burn" was ranked a severity 9; and "fire" was ranked a severity of 10.

    6.     Occurrence:  This is a ranking parameter which  is an assessment of the likelihood
          that the potential failure mode (which is the result of the cause or causes) will happen.
          Typically, the range of ranking values is  between 1 and 10 (never zero).  Table 5
          presents the definitions used in this analysis for the Occurrence  Ranking, Note:  The
          Occurrence is related to the failure mode, not the Effect of the failure mode.

       The Severity and Occurrence  tables were developed by the SwRI team.  The  Dyadem
FMEA-Pro software used to manage the FMEA process  came with pre-installed Severity,
Occurrence, and Detection tables.  However, the SwRI team decided that the Dyadem definitions
for the Severity and for the Occurrence ranking were more typical of automotive products, and
needed revision. The team chose definitions, which better represents Class I and Class II small
engines.  The ranking values and definitions are shown in Tables 4 and 5 shown below.
                                           17

-------
                              Table 4. Severity Ranking Definitions
                  Effect
                               Severity of Effect - Customer
                                       Hazardous effect. Safety Related. Regulatory non-compliant
                                       Potential hazardous effect. Able to stop without mishap. Regulatory
                                       compliance in jeopardy.
                                       Item inoperable, but safe. Customer very dissatisfied
                                       Performance severely affected, but functional and safe. Customer dissatisfied
                                      Performance degraded, but operable and safe. Customer experiences
                                      discomfort
                                       Performance moderately affected. Fault on non-vital requires repair.
                                       Customer experiences some dissatisfaction
                                       Minor effect on performance. Fault does not require repair. Non-vital fault
                                       always noticed. Customer experiences minor nuisance.
                                       Slight effect on performance. Non-vital fault noticed most of the time.
                                       Customer slightly annoyed.
                                      Very slight effect on performance. Non-vital fault may be noticed. Customer is
                                      not annoyed.
                                       No effect.
                            Table 5. Occurrence Ranking Definitions
  Ranking
           Probability
Likely Failure Rates
                                       Greater than / Equal to 1 in 2
                                       1 in 3
                                       1 in 8
                                       1 in 20
                                       1in80
                                       1 in 400
                                       1 in 2000
                                       1 in 10,000
                                       1 in 50,000

                                       £1 in 500,000
steps:

    1.
    2.
Note 1:  For the Design FMEA the Occurrence Ranking is related to the design life of the equipment.
Note 2:  For the Process FMEA the Occurrence Ranking is related to a one-year operation period.


The Design and  Process FMEA methodology for this work consisted of the  following



    Define the system to be studied (ref:  Attachment 7)
    •   This activity depends on the project scope and relies on the expertise of the team
        members.

    List the items in the system
    •   This activity is intended to make sure each team member is well versed  in the sub
        elements of the system or component being evaluated.
                                                  18

-------
    3.     List the major functions of each item or element
          •   This activity is intended to make sure that the team has identified all of the main
              functions of the system or component being studied.

    4.     Anticipate the possible Failure Modes for each item
          •   This activity uses experience and engineering judgment to identify the most likely
              ways the system or component could fail.

    5.     Consider possible Causes
          •   Determine what could be the cause of the failure mode.

    6.     Determine the potential effects of each failure mode
          •   This activity develops a list of what the team members would expect to be the
              possible results or effects of the particular failure mode.

    7.     Rank the Severity of the potential effect of the failure mode
          •   This activity is based on experience and judgment. The team defines the  severity
              of the effect and assigns a Severity value.

    8.     Determine the likelihood that the particular failure mode would occur
          •   This activity requires the team estimates or use data to project how often the
              particular failure would likely occur and assigns an Occurrence value.

    9.     The Risk Priority Number (RPN)
          •   This is calculated by multiplying the Severity ranking value of the potential effect
              of the failure mode by the Occurrence ranking value.  The RPN parameter relates
              to each failure mode and is a primary output of the FMEA analysis.  It is intended
              to drive focus  on the areas needing product improvement.  The highest ranked
              potential failures should get further attention  and the lowest ranked items may not
              be addressed at all.

    10.    Perform Failure Analysis on Phase 2 and Phase 3 engines
          •   Since the study considered incremental changes between Phase 2 and Phase 3
              engine; each had to be analyzed and ranked separately.

    11.    RPN Delta (Phase 2 versus Phase 3)
          •   This value is the difference between the Phase 3 RPN and the Phase 2 RPN.  A
              positive number suggests an improvement for Phase 3.

       The ranking process for an FMEA is adapted  to the particular study being conducted.  In
the case of this FMEA, the Occurrence of the Failure Mode and the Severity of the Effects were
ranked using the list of criteria presented in Tables 4 and 5.  The  ranking definitions  and the
specific ranking process were established by consensus of the team.  The ranking process is
generally unique for each study and team.  One exception is that any Effect of a Failure that is
defined as hazardous or potentially hazardous is ranked as a 10 or 9, respectively.  In addition, in
this study parallel Design  FMEAs were conducted for Phase  2 and  Phase 3 engines in order to
identify the expected incremental risk.
                                           19

-------
4.0   DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

OVERVIEW

      This FMEA was conducted to  identify and assess potential  safety differences between
engines/equipment meeting EPA Phase 2 emission standards and engines/equipment meeting
potential EPA Phase 3 standards. This analysis covered both equipment using Class I (<225cc)
and Class II (>225cc) engines. For the Class I engines, the equipment identified were a typical
walk behind lawnmower. For Class II, the equipment identified was a typical ride on mower.

      Two different types of FMEAs were prepared. The first was  a Design FMEA. This was
prepared for Class I and Class II engines. The second was a Process FMEA. This was prepared
for the processes of refueling, maintenance and storage of the aforementioned equipment.  The
Design FMEAs will be discussed first  followed by the Process FMEAs, and then more general
conclusions about the work.  The complete tables of results for the two Design FMEAs for Class
I and Class II engines/equipment can be found in Attachments 8 and 9. The complete tables of
results for the three Process FMEAs for refueling, maintenance and storage can be found in
Attachments 10, 11, and 12, respectively.

Design FMEA

      The Design  FMEAs were completed using  a systems approach. The system, subsystem
and  components most  likely to be  modified  for compliance with potential exhaust and
evaporative requirements were considered.  Twelve systems/subsystems were evaluated.  This
was deemed an essential part of the process because of the technical interdependency of these
systems, and the potential interaction among these systems in potential failure mode situations.

      The twelve systems evaluated included those listed in Table 6.

                          Table 6.  FMEA Systems Evaluated
      1   Intake air filter                       7   Exhaust manifold, muffler,
                                                  muffler shroud and  gasket
      2   Carburetor system                    8   Supplemental air (Class I only)
      3   Governor                            9   Catalyst (monolith,  matting)
      4   Intake manifold, port, valve  and seals    10  Cooling system
      5   Block                               II  Ignition system
      6   Exhaust valve and seal                  12  Fuel tank and line

The Design FMEAs were structured and conducted  in the following manner.

    1. The systems and functions were identified.

   2.  Inputs for the row items of each system/function combination were determined (Potential
      Cause  (Contributing), Potential Cause (Primary), Potential Failure Modes,  Potential
       Effect(s) of Failure).
                                         20

-------
    3.  Ranking were established for Severity and Occurrence.

    4.  Values were assigned for the Phase 2 engine: Occurrence of the Potential Failure Mode
       and Severity of the Potential Effect(s) of Failure

    5.  Values were assigned for the Phase 3 engine: Occurrence of the Potential Failure Mode
       and Severity of the Potential Effect(s) of Failure

    6.  Calculation of RPN's for Phase  2 and Phase 3 and calculation of difference in RPN
       (Phase 3-Phase 2)

    7.  Include notes to describe important items in the decision making for each line item.

    8.  Classify the Effect (Safety, Regulatory, Performance, Other)

       This work leaned heavily on the teams understanding of engines, combustion, fuels and
how primary and contributing causes can translate into potential failure modes. Each member of
the team was given opportunity to add input and speak to the need for refinement and changes.
The reports and  data provided  by CPSC were important and identified some of the potential
failure modes and effects.

Process FMEAs

       Input received from various sources and the CPSC reports and data revealed  processes
which led to potential problems in use.  EPA felt  that specific  analysis of these three areas was
important because they represent typical life-cycle use for the product. The Process FMEAs
conducted  by the team included  refueling,  maintenance, and storage. While some of the
information and results from  the  Design FMEAs carry  across  to  the Process FMEAs, the
difference  is in  the introduction of the operator to  perform these  functions.  These Process
FMEAs were completed with heavy reliance on the technical  information, the expertise of the
team members and input from the CPSC reports and data.

RESULTS  .

       Complete FMEA summaries are included  in the Attachments  8 through 12.  A subset of
these results that relate only to safety items are presented in Tables 7 through 11. Tables 7 and 8
cover Class I and Class II Design FMEA safety items, and Tables  9 through 11 cover  refueling,
shutdown and storage, and maintenance Process FMEA safety items, respectively.

Design FMEAs - Discussion of Safety Tables for Class I and Class II

       In Table 7, Class I engine FMEA safety items are grouped by systems/subsystems, i.e.
intake air filter, carburetor system, governor, and others as presented in Table 6. Intake air filter
failures (dirty, missing filters) can cause engine operation to switch either richer or leaner. Richer
operation (reference item 1) could cause a backfire, which could result in a fire or burn. Fire or
burn is always classified with a severity of 10. The team rated the occurrence of this failure mode
to be reduced for the Phase 3 product relative to the Phase 2 product. This difference is based on


                                           21

-------
experience with EPA prototype Phase 3  engines, which showed reduced incidence of backfire
with catalyst, principally due to the flame arresting function provided by the catalyst. For intake
air  failure mode  (reference item 2), a leaner  mixture can  create  slightly  higher exhaust
temperatures. Since baseline (non-failure mode) exhaust temperatures are already high enough to
cause burns, this failure mode only incrementally increases severity  of the burn. Since catalyst
application does not increase the occurrence of the failure mode, the RPN values  are the same for
Phase 2 and  3 products. This increase could be mitigated by application of a thermal cutoff
switch, designed to shut the engine off at a specified temperature.
            s
       The next four failure modes (reference items 3 through 6) have to do with the carburetor
system. Restrictions in fuel passages (reference item 3) could result  in higher engine and/or
catalyst temperatures with the resulting potential effect of a fire or touch burn. This effect rates a
severity of 10. While the Phase 3 engine's catalyst  may increase  the  thermal  load around the
engine, the improvements in manifold air cooling will mitigate these effects. The RPN rankings
are thus the same  for Phase 2 and Phase 3  product.  As is the case above, this effect could be
mitigated for either Phase 2 or 3 products  by application of a thermal cutoff switch.

       Carburetor system failure mode (reference item 4), backfire, is caused by  a richer mixture
which can  be caused by float malfunctions, a stuck choke, or other causes. As in the case of the
intake air filter associated backfire, (reference item 1) the team felt the incidence of this would
be reduced with catalyst application, thus  resulting in  a reduced RPN for the Phase 3 product.

       Carburetor system failure modes (reference  item  5 and 6)  involve  fuel leakage to a
surface where it can potentially be ignited, causing a  fire or burn (severity  10). The incidence of
this occurring was rated the same with or without a catalyst since adequate ignition temperatures
are already present in existing Phase  2 product. Also, fuel can be ignited by the  ignition system,
which is present in both Phase 2 and Phase 3 product.

       A governor malfunction, where the governor does not close the throttle  can result in an
overspeed, which  can cause mechanical  engine failure where  parts fail or come  apart due to
excessive speed (reference item 7). Occurrence of this type of failure is very low, and is the same
with or without a catalyst.

       A significant crack or leak in  the intake manifold (reference item 8) can result in a leaner
mixture which could lead to increased temperatures in the exhaust systems  or catalyst. Potential
effects are fire or burn (severity 10). The Phase 3 engine has a significantly lower occurrence due
to improvement in intake manifold system design, including the use of gaskets. SwRI recently
performed a teardown and inspection of 10,  field aged, Class I, Phase 2 engines. Eight of the 10
were found to have leaky intake manifolds.  This type of problem will need to  be addressed on
Phase 3 products to assure in-use emissions compliance.

       Engine failures can be caused by  excessive temperatures (reference 9 and 10). This can
result from higher thermal  loads due  to  higher engine  loading or a mechanical  problem.
Sufficiently high temperatures can cause failure or seizure of an internal component,  rendering
the engine non-functional. A catastrophic engine failure could create a safety hazard from flying
debris or an engine fire. In both cases, the occurrence is rated to be the same with or without a
                                            22

-------
catalyst. As discussed above, these failure modes could be mitigated for either Phase 2 or 3
products by application of a thermal cutoff switch.

       The next three failure modes (reference items 11 through 13) are related to problems with
the exhaust manifold. Gasket failures can cause leaks which can cause burns. Occurrence of this
failure mode is reduced for Phases 3 product due to the use of improved exhaust system designs
and/or improved materials. Debris accumulation around the exhaust manifold can result in a fire
(reference item  12).  Occurrence of this failure mode is reduced for Phase 3  product due to
improved designs of the.cooling air ducting systems. Another potential failure mode is the loss of
the muffler shroud. This can also result in fire or burn. Occurrence of this failure mode is again
reduced due to improvement in the design of the air ducting system. Thus in all three cases, RPN
ratings for exhaust manifold related failure modes are reduced with Phase 3 product, principally
due to improvements in design. These same improvements could be effected in Phase 2 product,
if desired.

       The next failure mode is associated with the catalyst system. The RPN value is higher for
Phase 2 due to the absence of catalyst on the Phase 2 product. If in manufacturing, the  incorrect
catalyst were installed on the engine or the catalyst was installed improperly (reference item 14),
excessive temperatures could result if the catalyst has higher catalytic activity than the proper
catalyst for that  engine. It should be noted that the occurrence of this failure mode for Phase 3
product is relatively low. Further, the occurrence of this mode can be reduced by application of a
thermal cutoff switch if the design team determined it was needed.

       The next two failure modes result from problems with the cooling system (reference
items 15 and 16). A failure of the cooling system shroud (reference item  15) that directs cooling
air can result in higher temperatures that present a burn risk. Presence of a catalyst has no effect
of the occurrence or severity of this failure and thus Phase 2 and Phase 3 products have the same
RPN. The  pluggage of cooling  passages  by debris will  tend to increase the component
temperatures and could result in a burn risk.  Due to the expected design improvements in the
cooling system features of the  Phase 3 product,  the Phase 3 RPN is lower than the Phase 2
product. These problems associated with the cooling system could be mitigated, again, by the use
of a thermal cutoff switch.

       Ignition system problems can cause a variety of failure modes. A bad spark  plug or
ignition wire or a problem with the ignition module or the magneto can result in a  weak or
intermittent spark (reference item 17). This can potentially result in higher muffler and catalyst
temperatures and an increased burn risk. Ignition system problems can also result in misfire
(reference item 18), which can cause a fire of burn. Phase 3 RPN is less than that for Phase 2
product due to the reduced incidence of backfire when a catalyst is applied,  as demonstrated by
EPA.

       Fuel tank problems can present  possibilities for  fuel leaks which can result in fires or
burns. High muffler or catalyst temperatures could melt nearby fuel lines  resulting in a fuel leak.
For reference items 19, 20, 21, 22  and 23, the application of fuel evaporative emission controls
will  reduce leak occurrence, resulting in lower RPNs for Phase 3 product.  For the other three
cases, the presence of a catalyst does not affect the rankings; they are the same with or without a
catalyst.
                                           23

-------
i
u
   0)
   to
   (0
   _w

   O
           a « s

          I
           ^ 2
° J* J


IfIIII
                 !!
        "TJ »


         II
       1*
                 =- B=

                 llil
                       ii
               Ii

                       •  n  «

                       f. Ill I
                       III
                        I "I
                        till
i&Uf
: (5 c 5 -S
         IJ!




       till!
       § HI § RE

       Ilill
       Icfll
       I! Bi-
lit


lit
II!
Sff
f|s

III

n
                       if
                       Z5*lfl
                       SS.5SI.S
               [Jill

               Illllil
                III!

-------
           Hit
           \\

W ** I
!*!
Sli
3&J
fi«i
                                     i!)
                                     I <•£
                          Ill
                                     ££ 8
                                     '5'Sg
                                     lit
                                     O '5 


-------
    &

  ln
  ! g 8 J
  !8S|
  !&H
  S,»es
1!
I?
s|

a 5
ll
g'S
       -^"
       I15*
       |S|
       "*8
       £!l
         I
         s-
                li
                If
                 li
                 50
                      <•>(_ ra

                      *
!IP
                         si
                         a E
                                •5

                             6  8
                             » _ c
                              S.S g
                              e S


                             Iff

                             111
                                                  §1"

                                                  ill!
     s
   Og
          
-------
          4jn™™»*S«!SfSi*
          ,! '.':"",_SfWij:
          j.'i"! ';:«:';"iJ1
           •Ifj jUMHi
-S
?11
Hi
                 Mgjgyjgjg-
                 til
                   it
                 II;
                  W m
                 III
                  fiC!
                 le
                                        •'fflljgijjp;;
                                        5|fd|^;!ii5|'M
                                        ^j^ioiSugb
                                        !KH™aSf!iSfS*ii^
                                         l^'!'4.jfi"
                                           !.S (
                                           !i!
                                     a*:**! o'i5!^;*
                                     'IpfSffi
                                        -"ft.'-1
                                             ;i.« ..jp^
                                       i!
                                       ii
                                       Is
     (Ofc
                                           I
                            o
                            i
                           SI

                           II
                                       §1

                                       11

                                       II
                           •s «
                           Is
                        11
                        Si
                        II
                                            S E

                                            11
CO
O
I
                                 till

                                   1
                                   i
                                1

                                I

-------
       Table 8 presents a summary of Class II engine FMEA safety items. In many cases, Class
II engine safety items are similar or identical to those for Class I engines. Discussion will focus
or areas with significant differences.

       While most Class II engines currently  use carburetors, several use fuel injection systems
and it is likely more will do so in the future. Carburetor system  items (reference items 3 through
7) can be caused by either carburetor or fuel injection system problems. Fuel pump or pressure
regulator failures can cause the leaner mixture problem in reference item 3. This can also be
caused by fuel filter or injector restrictions, or problems with injection  system wiring, or MAP
(manifold absolute pressure) sensors, ECMs (engine control modules), or by oxygen (O2) sensor
failures. For  backfire  failure modes associated with carburetors (reference item 4), the catalyst
will reduce incidence of backfire, as demonstrated by EPA, thus producing lower RPN values for
the Phase 3 product.

       Another type of fuel injection system  failure is presented in reference item 7, where an
ECM or a solenoid valve return spring failure could allow fuel to flow into a non running engine.
This could  puddle or leak from the engine,  and could ignite causing a fire. This failure mode is
unaffected  by the presence of a catalyst; thus the RPN values  are the same  for Phase 2 and 3
engines.

       For Class II engines with a MAP sensor, a leak in the intake manifold can cause the MAP
to read a higher pressure that would command a  richer mixture (reference  item 10). This could
produce a backfire, potentially causing a fire or burn. RPN values are the same with or without a
catalyst.

       Another type of failure mode more  specific to Class II products is equipment tip-over.
This can happen where the operator is mowing on a slope, for example, and reaches an angle
where the equipment  rolls over (reference item 23). In such cases, fuel can leak from the fuel
tank and potentially  catch  fire. The evaporative emission controls expected for  Phase 3  will
reduce the leak occurrence, and thus the Phase 3 RPN is also lower. Available data suggests the
Phase 3 product could have directionally cooler exhaust system temperatures as demonstrated by
EPA. Cooler exhaust temperature will improve the risk of fire due to equipment tip over further.
                                           28

-------
a
tfl
0
   s
   (0
   (0

   o
       >£
if
il
       JS

          £35;
          = S.E

                  t * m "

                  !|fl
                  • i_ S *"
                  !°1*
                  iMg
                  -Ccg

                  im
                  lit!
                  jgfl
                  s-«l
                  &i?t
              i
              il
              .te
              •t

              I
                                   §
                                   a.
                                  •S-
                         it


-------
              •E «

              III
                              «f
                              SS"
                              5 E
                                     fpl
                                     1 1 II
                                     fi
                                       I
                                              £
   •a 10
   J*
                 6

                 I
                                       o
                                       I
   1st
(0

1
                                      ^
                              ii

                                      '5 |

                                      ill
fl  s
!c 62 c
2.E °.2.|
(0
(0
(A
(A
_w
o
                             iilti
l|Ot


Iblll
                                           i
                                                 II

-------
it
:I
     2

     i
     5>
     £
                51

                II

                           f

                           £ m"3





                           III

                           *fl

                           if-
                                t
                                    III
                                    5 « *
                                                 fi
                                                 It
                                                       If


                                                       11
    .S?
     £

                'bl£%i
                      i'j,,  »";»!.
                      . S  „ 1 H l!
                   f-" S,* irfr
                   ?!,«-,  i.*_ml 5
                     •WSh^Jf-li8
                       fo rsr ,,
                       a-*",./ <

                   S#** '1
                   ,5" -'»-  "1  "
                  !*1
                                                  Jf«i .

                                                 ••1?^"
                 %:.-
                                      g  .
    sa
    10 0.
    f"" tS
     jg

    M U
    « -te
                                fl
                                ||i

                                II!
          M^
          111
            i|
          4} ill
                    !iisi|!
                     tc o '« £ k- :
                     iS- O m -O O '
iil«!*!
fitlllf
en
     1!
                       I
          ill!
*
(0
10
o
    If
    u^

    ii
s
           •


           11
                        £

-------
       i g>
       'i
       !1
       ) O

       Is
       S

       eJ
II
            *



           5  g.

           1*1
           ,£12
                   i
                   11
                   .1!
                        I
                        l

                        I
                             II
                             12
                              i
                               s
                               a
2*11
fill
                            II
                               Sfg
                               a>p2
S'S'SIl

|l|s|

at E "D 5 8







fllfl

•§ o & £ f

lilt"
                                      !&

                                      !l
                                           I'
        J2 Q .
        i3 8-
        £ 5 .
        £$
        £« »
        .af-
        «K
        Q  .
        is
        f |
                in
                i«g
                '
    if
   z n
   O. n
   K a.
   S

   W
              o

              i
                                            o

                                            i
(0
UJ
I
I

O
       &:

       1]
                             aa E.S>E
                                      - f

                                      ll

                                      S1
                                      S
                                      a
                                               B

                                               ii
                                                    3

                                                    11!
              »,


              o

-------
    1
(0
   Is!

   131
ill

u_
co
w
re

O
        tf
        f

            ii
           till
             u.
                  1




                  is



                  o


                  I

                  I
                 HI
                 II

-------
Process FMEAs - Discussion of Safety Tables

       Tables 9-11 summarize safety related failure modes and effects for Class I and Class II
engines. These tables are for Process FMEAs, which consider failure modes which can occur in
the course of a process or an operation. Table 9 considers engine refueling. Table  10 addresses
the process of engine shutdown and storage; and Table 11 is for maintenance processes.

       Safety  issues associated with refueling principally involve fuel spillage which can result
in a fire. Refueling failure mode, reference item 1, involves a scenario where the operator has not
shut off the engine before refueling (Table 9). The potential effect of this failure mode is the risk
of refueling while the engine is still running. Thermal images taken by EPA of current Phase 2
product and prototype Phase 3 product indicate  that exhaust surface temperatures at  idle are
similar. In addition, EPA is not expected to propose measures to reduce spillages related to the
refueling process as part of its Phase 3 rulemaking. Since the thermal characteristics between
Phase 2 and Phase 3 products are expected to be  similar and the human factors associated with
the refueling process are the same in each case, the RPN values are ranked equally for the Phase
2 and Phase 3 products for all refueling process scenarios.
                                            34

-------

-------
    O
    "5
    I?
    3

    §.
                I
          £
          
-------
u_
 
-------
       Table 10 presents failure modes that can occur during equipment shutdown and storage.
In several cases, failures can result from inability to shut the engine off. The operator can be
burned while trying to disconnect the spark plug wire. Another failure mode can occur if the
operator covers the equipment with a tarp while it is still hot. The tarp could catch fire and
damage the equipment or even cause a structural fire if the equipment had been moved indoors.
Fires can also result from storage of hot equipment on or next to combustible materials, such as
newspapers. In all cases, there are no  differences  between RPNs  for Phase 2 and Phase 3
equipment.
                                           38

-------

(0
 o
    Is
    II
3?

II
     g.
          Q- •
          c
          =5
          o
                         c |£°


                     £
                               i
      fe^S
      2«|
      II!
                                I?
                                  CO
                                  0>
                                  c

                                  t
                                  111
                                Si
                                0) cti
                                (A CQ
                                1°
                                    I
                                     8.
                                         e-t
                                         (0 .S
                            1

                            I
                         Is
                                    W

                               <• ^-
                              t
                                  CO


                                  i
                                  Q.

                                  LLI
                                                      CD
                                   2S>'
                                               w
                                               S
                                                   f
                                                       2
                                                       1C

                                                       15
                                                       w •

                                                       I"
                                                        s"-!
                                                        ct p

                                                           I
                                                         c ,_ .£
                                                             »u ®
                                                             "3St: ?>
                                                             §S*i
                                                           O t> Q
                                                           lii
III
III
                                                               I
                                                                       ON

-------
(A
(A

-------
       The Equipment/Engine Maintenance Process FMEA is included in Attachment 12,  Table
11 addresses only the maintenance  processes with potential safety effects.   These include
cleaning the equipment, changing the oil and filter, changing the spark plug,  sharpening the
mower blade,  and replacing the drive  belt.  Possible failure modes  and resulting effects can
include burns from contact with hot  surfaces, fires caused by fuel or oil spillage, or personal
injury from equipment tip over. Additionally, if the drive belt is improperly installed, it can slip
and get very hot, potentially causing  a fire. For the  fuel spillage scenarios, vapor control
requirements will reduce the occurrence of fuel  spillage with Phase 3 product. For all other
cases, the presence of a catalyst does not increase the RPN value above that for Phase 2 product.

       Although a Process FMEA was not conducted to specifically address lack of maintenance
of Class I or Class II engines, the causes, failure modes, and effects due to lack of maintenance
are addressed  within the  Equipment/Engine Maintenance  Process FMEA and/or the Design
FMEAs.  The maintenance processes which are typically performed by the equipment operator
which, if neglected,  could have  incremental  effects  with operation of Phase 3  engines are as
follows:

    1.      Equipment Cleaning: The Equipment/Engine Maintenance Process FMEA does not
           address lack of cleaning.  However,  Sections 10 and 9  "Cooling System" of the
           Class I and Class II  Design FMEAs (Attachments 8 and 9)  respectively, do address
           plugging  of cooling passages by debris.  The Occurrence and RPN associated with
           plugging  due to lack of cleaning is expected to be reduced  with Phase 3  engines.

   2.      Engine Oil and Oil Filter Maintenance:   In Attachment 12, reference number 10
           addresses lack of maintenance. In addition, if engine  oil was not replaced or kept at
           an adequate level, the effects due to  a higher thermal load is identified in Item 5
           "Block, Power Head" in Attachments 8 and 9. No difference between Phase 2 and
           Phase 3 engines is expected.

   3.      Air Filter Maintenance: Lack of maintenance is described in references 25 and 26 of
           Attachment 12.  The effects in Attachment  12 are general, however, in the Design
           FMEAs specific effects due to the two Potential Causes (Primary) are identified in
           Item 1 "Intake Filter". For example, a richer or leaner mixture could result if the air
           filter was not  maintained or replaced at regular intervals.  A reduction in  safety
           related RPN, and an increased in RPN  associated with  failing to meet emissions
           regulations were identified due to filter degradation.  ,

   4.      Spark Plug Maintenance:  The cause, failure, and effect that could be envisaged from
           lack of maintenance of the spark  plug is  addressed in reference 28 of Appendix 12,
           and in Items 11 and 10 "Ignition  System" of the Class I and Class II engine Design
           FMEAs,  respectively.  No  increased  safety related RPN was identified, however,
           there  is an  incremental RPN associated with failing  to meet emissions regulations
           due to a lack of maintenance.

    5.      Carburetor Maintenance:  Lack of maintenance of the carburetor is not addressed in
           the Equipment/Engine Maintenance  Process  FMEA.   However, if carburetor
                                           41

-------
maintenance was not performed causing restricted fuel passages or allowing debris
accumulation in the float bowl, these contributing causes are identified in Item 2
"Carburetor or Fuel Injection System" in the Design FMEAs. A reduction in safety
related RPN, and  an increased RPN  associated with failing to  meet emissions
regulations were identified due to fuel passage restriction or debris accumulation
within the fuel system.
                                42

-------
??£
s£2
  §OL Z
  J=0-

JB*|
&8S

||1


US
  3 'D
  ~ 2
   a.
ri
1*1
SJ £ U.
E ~Q;
4) %
'5 ffl£
cr O
5 c -o
^ a> c




? ««
fe§ =

111
                         D.


                           Jts
                           o>
                         fl> CL


                         8 "
                         P
                         Z ra
                    •~ a)
                    8 to
                    c a
                    K 2
I?
Z a
                          II
                           ts

                           8
                          £ g
                               S§
                               I!
                                          .*">
                                          i <°
                                          I O
            ; CL Z


            fife
                                           N
                                          i o
^ o-S
O O 3


Hi
                        i?
                        !t>
                        in

                        : 
                                                           JS
                                                                w _•

                                                              11!
                                                              f I

                                                              .|i»
                                                              g-85
                                                              £g"g
goo

8°5
O O D


8-11
> 2 Q.
     Z

     CL

     Of
     I-
11
               I
               co
               CO
             *
                      I
                      a
                      W
                                  t
                             t
                                    W.
                                                       n
                                                       V)
                                         s
                                         £
                                                           I
             fe

             3
             \l
                 o

                 'o.
                                o

                                fei
                                                   s
                                                   5
                                                   3.
                                                               a.


                                                               I
LU


LL

(A
(A
Q)
O
O
 
                                 il
                                 E a>
                                 »~ V*
                                                £
                                                c «

                                                E 8
                       1^1

                       £ 'c .9-

                       ^11
                                                   -e
                                                   O)
                                                   ^c
                                                           .9.
                                                           a
  I
       O-



       S
        i

        5
                 I


                 3
                 0)
                 ra

                 6
       6

       I

       o
                             n

                             6

                                                  I
                                                  CO
                                                  0>

                                                  ?
                                                  re

                                                  O
                   Q.
                  
-------
U.

 (A
 (A
 O
 O
 O
 0>
 O
 c
 n
 c
 ,
            5
I
CD
w
                 I
                      f
                      w.
          o w

                               --
               c ._ 
-------
5.0    CONCLUSIONS

Design FMEAs

       The safety  summary tables for the  Design FMEAs for Class  I and  Class II engines
contain 49 potential failure modes.  For 28 of these, there was no difference in Risk Priority
Number (RPN) between Phase 2 and Phase 3 product designs.  There are also 19 potential failure
modes for which there is a decreased RPN due to improvements in Phase 3 product design, and
two for which there is an increased RPN.

       As can be seen in Table 3, EPA's Phase 3 designs improve on Phase 2 designs in several
key areas. EPA's Phase 3 design includes features which are key to implementing catalyst-based
standards and fuel evaporative emission controls, with overall comparable or lower RPNs, which
helps to address safety-related shortcomings in the current Phase 2 engines  evaluated.   Data
supplied by EPA showed comparable  or better results in key areas such as exhaust system
surface temperatures, backfire/misfire performance, and post use cool down.

       Overall, the Design FMEAs indicate that from a safety perspective, Phase 3 designs can
be comparable, if not directionally better than Phase 2 for both  Class I and Class II products.

       This FMEA report relies on laboratory and field data collected by the EPA which shows
that the use of catalyst on small SI engines, if properly designed, could result in exhaust system
temperatures which are comparable or lower than current product in the marketplace. The  main
features of EPA's Phase 3 system design  include use of cooling air from the fan to flow across
the catalyzed muffler and  engine block, control of CO emission reductions to reduce the CO
oxidation exotherm, and a properly designed and located heat shield.  However, as is the case
with mufflers on  current product, thermal images  taken of catalyzed  mufflers show  that
temperatures are still above the second degree burn temperature for skin.

       It is the  nature of the  FMEA process  to  consider interdependencies and interactions
among subsystems. That is, the FMEA  looks at how a failure of as subsystem or component to
properly perform its intended function can affect other subsystems and components. In this way,
potential effects on the catalyzed muffler and changes in catalyst performance affecting safety
were considered in every item of the Phase 3 analyses.  The same is true for the fuel system and
fuel system components impacted by fuel evaporative emission controls.

       The potential failure modes that represent the two Class I and Class II negative difference
RPNs involved the use of an improper catalyst or a mis-installation of a catalyst.

       - The engine manufacturer selected a catalyst with the  wrong specification or assembled
       the wrong catalyst component on  the engine and the  catalyst converted  more CO than
       expected which resulted in increased catalyst temperatures.

       While the probability of this failure was ranked as remote, if this was to occur, the failure
has the potential to result in higher temperatures of the catalyst muffler/shroud system with the
potential effect of risk or a fire or burn.
                                          45

-------
       With regard to burn, this potential effect of failure is probably better characterized as the
potential for a more  severe (thermal) burn than an increase in the occurrence of thermal burn
since Phase 2 exhaust system temperatures are already high enough to cause a thermal burn.  In
order to have an increase in the occurrence of thermal burn, the designs would have to create a
situation where the operator has more frequent contact with the muffler area.  During the use of
this equipment  with Phase 3 engines, the operator need  not access the area of the muffler any
more frequently than with the current Phase 2 product.

       If temperatures of the catalyst muffler/shroud system were to increase beyond those of
current product, the incidence of fires may still be the same. This is based on the fact that in
order for a fire to happen, the surface  temperatures on current  products are often  above the
ignition temperature for combustibles such  as dry  debris or fuel. In this  study, the catalyst
mufflers replace the existing mufflers in current locations, but EPA is projecting improvements
in cooling approaches to reduce surface  temperatures. If the engine or equipment manufacturer
elected, it  could reduce burn  risk by incorporating a bimetallic thermal cutoff switch which
would  shut off the engine if temperatures exceeded a  selected value. This would result in a
decrease in the risk of fire or burn. This approach could be used with current Phase 2 product, as
well.

Process FMEAs

       Three processes were identified for FMEA analysis:  refueling, equipment storage, and
maintenance.  The Process FMEAs were done to identify if there could be any potential for
increased concern  of Phase  3 engine systems with  catalyst  mufflers compared to the current
Phase 2 product.  Due to the fact that these processes are mostly done with the engine off, the
processes were analyzed primarily with  respect to worst case outcomes after shut-off.  It was
concluded that there were no additional areas of concern with Phase 3 prototypes versus Phase 2
engine designs.  This  was based on EPA's thermal data  that showed  the  muffler's hot soak
temperatures were  comparable, or potentially reduced, with properly designed Phase 3 catalyst
systems.   In  some  cases,  there  was  the  potential for improvement  due to  fuel  system
modifications and  upgrades  associated  with meeting the fuel  evaporative emission  control
requirements EPA  is considering.
                                           46

-------
    ATTACHMENT 1




EPA STATEMENT OF WORK

-------
                                        . **»
          i cm T"~
                     i- 5» * Me •
Attachment 1 P-l

-------
                "">' STAtlMENTOF.WOflK

                      .  EPA Centred EP^-QWMe
                        B2200utetiraftl,PO Bon £6510
    : 2PA ia an^yztoo «w potent?*! satrty fcnpact of imr emo
                     ^at^^m
                                                          ,
                                                            '
                    |0MininQiM!if anil gn»tfc«i ttador,


                                      ^^

conflgwatone tobeo6ra8tic«^arotf>o^              The mwijarof • ,
cmif^^GH^ I94M o«)IWMM tm^tw
                 mowere and ^x tractora. .  Thesp«sficmo<»(i*$««l» *  ~
                 wo* to twgtmon tN» wjsft
                                                         ',
                              prfefto                      -'
                        Attachment 1 P-2

-------
•wen*, i any,
k
                                    . ZOOS. Pwooiitfaaof tiyi
                                                       -
                                    *
                      >   -        -M --        ,•     -
                                                           7

engines,

     Task 2     Sampler FMEA
                        H«t^
                         EPAi^pW^                     I

                               ^^                           .   .
                     »fleow»tylwuM
                             «VM^^
H«lud9lherfnpacStf Contractor Report arnlPcwwfrtartiooa
                                             8^

FMEM M a**" cor^pHaflon. bui flhal ateo foots tm changes m
                                                         w" r I
BwfaButtsolDneFMgAww*.'
 i° *• ,*••
 J. iv <
                         Attachment 1 P-3

-------
                               ig&Xusrfwt^fMEA:^

                                   conftwwioa cast and »•»«*».
          5    «'<^^^:; V * *^ ^
V?       W^iii^   v^-J^v;  r
                      Attachment 1 P-4

-------
                ATTACHMENT 2

REFERENCE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PHASE 2 AND PROTOTYPE
           PHASE 3 HARDWARE AT EPA

-------
FIGURE A2-1. STOCK BRIGGS QUANTUM SIDE VALVE COMPLETE ENGINE
             FIGURE A2-2. STOCK BRIGGS QUANTUM
               EUROPEAN CATALYTIC MUFFLER
                       Attachment 2 P-l

-------
FIGURE A2-3. STOCK BRIGGS QUANTUM SV CLOSE UP OF
     FRONT OF EUROPEAN CATALYTIC MUFFLER
FIGURE A2-4. STOCK BRIGGS QUANTUM SV CLOSE UP OF
      BACK OF EUROPEAN CATALYTIC MUFFLER
                  Attachment 2 P-2

-------
FIGURE A2-5. STOCK BRIGGS QUANTUM SV EUROPEAN
          CATALYTIC MUFFLER SHROUD
FIGURE A2-6. STOCK BRIGGS QUANTUM SV EUROPEAN
         CATALYTIC MUFFLER INTERIOR
                 Attachment 2 P-3

-------
FIGURE A2-7. STOCK BRIGGS QUANTUM SV CENTER EUROPEAN
 CATALYTIC MUFFLER INTERIOR WITH SUBSTRATE REMOVED
    FIGURE A2-8. STOCK BRIGGS QUANTUM SV EUROPEAN
     CATALYTIC MUFFLER SUPPLEMENTAL AIR VENTURI
                     Attachment 2 P-4

-------
   FIGURE A2-9. STOCK HONDA GVC 160 WITHOUT MUFFLER
FIGURE A2-10. STOCK HONDA GVC 160 MUFFLER WITH SHROUD
                    Attachment 2 P-5

-------
  FIGURE A2-11. EPA PROTOTYPE CATALYZED MUFFLER IN SHROUD
                     FOR HONDA GVC 160
FIGURE A2-12. EPA PROTOTYPE MUFFLER WITH EXHAUST GAS COOLING
        AIR EJECTOR AROUND EXHAUST FOR HONDA GVC 160
                        Attachment 2 P-6

-------
FIGURE A2-13. EPA PROTOTYPE MUFFLER AIR EJECTION TUBE FOR
                     HONDA GVC 160
 FIGURE A2-14. EPA PROTOTYPE MUFFLER CERAMIC SUBSTRATE
                   FOR HONDA GVC 160
                      Attachment 2 P-7

-------
FIGURE A2-15. TUBE CATALYST FOR INSERTION IN EXHAUST PORT
FIGURE A2-16. PROTOTYPE LOW CELL DENSITY METAL SUBSTRATE
                       CATALYST
                      Attachment 2 P-8

-------
      FIGURE A2-17. WIRE MESH CATALYST IN MUFFLER
FIGURE A2-18. WIRE MESH CATALYST REMOVED FROM MUFFLER
                     Attachment 2 P-9

-------
      FIGURE A2-19. STOCK HONDA GVC160 MOWER
FIGURE A2-20. BRIGGS 6.QUANTUM WITH BRIGGS EUROPEAN
                CATALYZED MUFFLER
                   Attachment 2 P-10

-------
   FIGURE A2-21. BRIGGS INTEK ENGINE WITH DUAL SUBSTRATE
         EUROPEAN MUFFLER AND COOLING AIR DUCT
FIGURE A2-22. STOCK BRIGGS INTEK ENGINE WITH STOCK MUFFLER
                      Attachment 2 P-11

-------
            FIGURE A2-23. STOCK TECUMSEH LV195BA
FIGURE A2-24. BRIGGS DUAL METALLIC SUBSTRATE EUROPEAN MUFFLER
                     ON TECUMSEH LV195BA
                         Attachment 2 P-12

-------
FIGURE A2-25. STOCK KAWASKIFH 601D INTAKE AIR
FIGURE A2-26. STOCK KAWASAKI FH 601D MUFFLER
                Attachment 2 P-l 3

-------
FIGURE A2-27. KAWASAKI FH 601D MUFFLER WITH AIR INJECTION
                      & CATALYST
   FIGURE A2-28. TRIPLE PASS CATALYST WITH DOUBLE WALL
                      Attachment 2 P-14

-------
FIGURE A2-29. STOCK MUFFLER WITH INSERTED CATALYST
FIGURE A2-30. STOCK MUFFLER WITH INSERTED CATALYST
                   Attachment 2 P-15

-------
FIGURE A2-31. HIGH EFFICIENCY DUAL CATALYST AHEAD OF MUFFLER
FIGURE A2-32. BRIGGSINTEK 31P777 SHOWING NO HEAD COOLING FINS
                         Attachment 2 P-16

-------
FIGURE A2-33. KOHLER CH26 WITH STOCK MUFFLER WITHOUT CATALYST,
              WITH EFI WITH EGO SENSOR FEEDBACK
  FIGURE A2-34. KOHLER CATALYZED MUFFLER FOR CH26 EFI ENGINE
                  WITH FEEDBACK EGO SENSOR
                        Attachment 2 P-17

-------
     FIGURE A2-35. PROTOTYPE BRIGGS 31P777 INTEK WITH
                       OIL COOLER
FIGURE A2-36. PROTOTYPE BRIGGS 31P777 INTEK WITH AIR DUCTED
                  TO CATALYST MUFFLER
                       Attachment 2 P-l 8

-------
FIGURE A2-37. PROTOTYPE BRIGGS 31P777 INTER CLOSE-UP OF ECU
                     & FUEL INJECTOR
 FIGURE A2-38. STOCK BRIGGS 31P777 INTER ON RIDING MOWER
                       Attachment 2 P-19

-------
     FIGURE A2-39. STOCK KOHLER CV490 RIDING MOWER
FIGURE A2-40. KOHLER CV490 RIDING MOWER WITH CATALYZED
       MUFFLER & MODIFIED SHROUD COOLING & EFI
                      Attachment 2 P-20

-------
          ATTACHMENT 3




NOTES ON CLASS II SOAK DATA FROM EPA           f

-------
Notes on Class II Soak Data from EPA

       Table 3-1 shows muffler surface temperature data taken from thermal images of Class II
engines that were brought up to normal operating temperature and then shut down  in order to
document  the  temperature over time.   All  catalysts tested  met proposed Class II  Phase 3
standards.  Data from Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1, show that with proper selection of catalyst and
exhaust system engineering, the prototype Briggs & Stratton INTEK engine's maximum muffler
surface temperatures do not exceed stock exhaust temperatures. In addition, Figure 3-1 shows
that prototype exhaust hot soak temperature  profiles can closely match those measured in the
stock configuration. The muffler with catalyst D showed the highest surface temperatures; it was
the most efficient and produced HC+NOx emission test  results significantly below results  from
tests using catalysts A and B.

              Table A3 -1. Muffler Temperature Field Soak Data vs. Time
TEST CONFIGURATIONS
Time, minutes from shutdown
Stock B&S Intek Plus
Prototype B&S EFI with Catalyst D
Prototype B&S EFI with Catalyst A
Prototype B&S EFI with Catalyst B
Stock Kohler CV490 with muffler
Prototype Kohler CV490 EFI with
Catalyst F
Prototype Kohler CV490 EFI with
Catalyst E
B&S INTEK Plus Stock Tractor (in-
chassis data)
Prototype B&S INTEK Plus EFI Tractor
with Catalyst D (in-chassis data)
MAXIMUM OBSERVED TEMPERATURE, °C
0
478
459
460
517
441
515
610
265
138
1
342
425
280
- 425
351
478
482
221
144
2
221
386
226
332
285
405
401
179
149
3
212
352
183
279
224
353
356
157
145
4
175
321
153
239
187
316
321
94.3
138
5
145
298
133
212
157
286
290
87
135
6
122
275
118

137
261
268

133
                                   Attachment 3 P-l

-------
                        B&S INTEK 31P777 Exhaust Soak Temperatures
                        -Stock B&S Intek Plus
                       	B&S EFI with Catalyst A
B&S EFI with Catalyst D
B&S EFI with Catalysts
               FIGURE A3-1. TIME (MINUTES AFTER SHUTDOWN)

Figure 3-2 shows data from a B&S INTEK equipped tractor with a stock and a modified muffler
with catalyst D.  Shrouding around the engine and exhaust system was modified in order to
control maximum surface temperatures while using catalyst D.  Figure 3-2 shows that with
proper cooling system design, exposed surface temperatures can be much lower than current
non-catalyst designs, and that they remain below grass ignition temperatures (350-400 °C per
Attachment 13) during a hot soak.

Figure 3-3 shows surface temperature data from a Kohler CV490 in stock and modified muffler
configurations. The line for catalyzed muffler F indicates that maximum temperatures upon shut
down were 74 °C higher than the stock muffler, and maintained a ~I30 °C higher temperature
than stock during the soak.  With catalysts F and E, the Kohler engine met the proposed Class II
Phase 3 standards.

The catalyst D data shown in Figure 3-2 and the catalyst A data in Figure 3-1  illustrate why
many failure modes in the FMEAs have lower probabilities of occurrence for Phase 3 engines
than for Phase 2 engines. However, there is also data in Table 3-1 and Figures 3-1 and 3-3 that
shows the need for sound engineering of Phase 3 designs.
                                   Attachment 3 P-2

-------
400
                     B&S Field Test Soak Temperatures
                       (shroud and force-air cooling)
             —B&S INTEK Plus Stock Tractor (in-chassis data)
              -B&S INTEK Plus EFI Tractor with Catalyst D (in-chassis data)
        FIGURE A3-2. TIME (MINUTES AFTER SHUTDOWN)
                   Kohler CV490 Exhaust Soak Temperature
700
600
                                  Time (min)
         	Stock Kohler CV490 with muffler 	Kohler CV490 EFI with Catalyst F
          —Kohler CV490 EFI with Catalyst E
        FIGURE A3-3. TIME (MINUTES AFTER SHUTDOWN)
                           Attachment 3 P-3

-------
ATTACHMENT 4
                                 I
LIST OF STANDARDS REVIEWED FOR THE FMEA STUDY

-------
1
o
«
I

-------

a
2.
o






_a>



flj
"«
O


Standard Ref.


m
01
£
i!
§o
g D)
ll
II
CO 0
2 0
o



ral Purpose and Locomotive
Spark Arrester Guide - Gene.
(GP/Locp)



c

nr»
S 430-1 NFES#136:
S
0.
CO

4
i!
2 C5
"55 U
2 =6
CO r>
2 O
o



>osition Small Engines (MSE)
Spark Arrester Guide - Multip

CO
0
c
3

ff\
S 430-2 NFES#236;
5
D.
cn

4
Service
t»
1
,
^1
Q
CO


CO
For Multipurpose Small Engine
ester Exhaust Systems
Fire Investigation Procedure
&Generat Purpose Spark Arr

^
cn
_L
Q.


00-Fire Management
9151 1801
in

o
CM
4
Service
"55
S
,
^£
Q
CO
D


ocedure for the Qualification
Screen, and Locomotive Spark
Manufacturer Submission Pn
Testing 'of General-purpose,
Arrester Exhaust Systems


O
t


00-Fire Management
0551 1803-SDTDC
in


CM
4
Service
•55
2
o
1
<
Q
CO
3


Chain Saw Spark Arrester
Standard Test Procedure for
Exhaust Systems

o>

i


00-Fire Management
9151 1804
T-
m

CM
CM
4
Service
I
,
^^
Q
CO
3
JO
Q)
General Purpose Sparfc Arrest
Standard Test Procedure for

8

In
1


00-Fire Management
9951 1805-SDTDC
In

0
CM
•
Service
1
0
,
^
Q
CO
3


Replacement Study - Final
Spark Arrester Test Carbon 1
| Report

a
^^
CO
CO
~J

00-Fire Management
9151 1202
m


CM
i
L|
If*
TO 1.
^C ^ Tii
Q >
CO ©
Z> 0


(Stars: Sparfc Arresters and the
An Introduction to Spark Arre
Prevention of Wildland Fires

CO
0
1

n
re Management Tech
Tips
10 0351 1304-SDTD<
i£ ?
m
m
CM
i
8 1
•> s
i«g g>
w >, 2
is S1"-
sf^
°||

^ k^ -jR
Q >

D D


park Arresters: Spark Arresten
id F/res
Multiposition Small-Engine S
and the Prevention of Wildlai

CO
a
i

o
re Management Tech
Tips
10 0351 1305-SDTD<
E ^
m
CO
CM
4

CO >,^
Iff

<3^ H* "55
Q 5
CO Q)
D D


sters: Sparfc Arresters and the
General-Purpose Spark Arre.
Prevention of Wildland Fires

CO
o
i

o
re Management Tech
Tips
10 0351 1306-SDTDi
il ^
in
^
CM
4
8 E
cot, 2
111
't_ c* fc
, o a
'(DO
< 1- 1
n c
EO 0>
15 °
O
•C
l/7Bstors: Sparfc Arresters and t
Off-Highway Vehicle Spark /
Prevention of Wildland Fires

CO
o
^
co

O
re Management Tech
Tips
10 0351 1307-SDTD!
il ^
m
CO
CM
4
Service
HM
O
LL,

<(
o
CO
3

c
d Service Contracts (Attachme
32 and 6309.11)
I Fire Plan for Construction an
I to Confracf) (Ref: FSH 6309.

T_
O5
|


RFQ-R5-1 5-03-073


o>
C\J
"*
8
•p»
cS
w
§
J^






| Fire Investigation Report






o
a
w


o
cn
*
o
CO
U)
CO
X

l~



•o
1
1
1
k."
Specification for Mowers, Po
m
o
M
4)

Q

515-MW-01


_
CO
4
2
-*
4-i

-------
a
s
0




*
*••
l-





15
a

*S
a:
•g
a
^
1
(0
"ffl
a:

CO
Z

7S
ce Conditions
1
CO
CD
H

s
-S
TO rn
*l
Standard Guide foi
Produce Contact B



o
in
m
o
0
CO
Z

3

3

(0
e
Member Edge
<3>
^
0
•S
•S1
.
"S
c.
i
Gasoline Engine P
Edger Trimmers




g


O
w

•8 .. "to
.aw/i and Gan
i and Garden
nitions, Safety
•tion 2.2.3 He
*-*j ^ H5 \j
J2~ CD Q CO
O ^J
t3 "o ' *>
g c 42 S
~- « § •§
§ S2 E o>
ra i "S g
S S Q.
M^ ^ 
in
S
in
o
W
CO
•4
I

-------
            ATTACHMENT 5




EXAMPLE: A TYPICAL FMEA REPORT FORMAT

-------
S
 s
CO
CO =

£*
wo
                          l
                       z
                       CL

                       of
                   O V ^^ Q) O
                     0 O  3 i^
                     W o>
                      Old
                      in
                      c c
                      O 4)
Ta

Cople

Date
rget
ndation
R
                                                                                                              J

                                                                                                              O
               <£  .0.  .Z
                Q 0) _
                        g
                3 a> o 111 6
                oooo2
                1 -If S s
                  5s oce 5
                  QOo.2
               O 0
                 W 0) >
                     in


                     l

-------
                ATTACHMENT 6

EXAMPLE: THE MODIFIED FMEA REPORT FORMAT USED
                  IN W.A. MO

-------
*-
It
 ~

II
II"
11
s


o
        s '„' sr
         il
      §


      I


                     E
                     •s
                     •3
                           I
                                                                       I
                                                                       •

-------
                ATTACHMENT 7




REPRESENTATION OF THE CATALYST CONTROL VOLUME

-------
   Heat in/Out of the
    CV (conduction,
 convection, radiation)
                                  AMBIENT AIR IN /
                                    OUT of the CV
                                Cooling Air (fan, shrouds, vanes,etc)
Air from
 control
 Volume
                                Ignition System: (spark plug, coil,
                                         points, wires)
                 Intake
           (air filter, carburetor,
           fuel feed,intake port,
             intake valve,..)
 Power Cylinder
  (piston, rings,
  head, block,
crankcase, crank,
      Exhaust
(exh valve, port, seals,
 attachments, muffler,
    spark arrester,
  supplemental air)
                                 Equipment (mower deck, fuel tank,
                                            controls)
                                Exhaust into the
                                 Control Volume
        System Control
      Volume Boundary
                 Fuel and oil vapors
                into and out of the CV
                                  Attachment 7 P-l

-------
ATTACHMENT 8
                                 i
CLASS I DESIGN FMEA REPORT
                                 i

-------
   Q)

  I
  Ul i2
  II

  S*
  Si
    J
  «*»
   3
   o
   S
   £

<
LJJ
"(0
0)
Q
to
CO
JS
O
11
I!

ft
IB
]l
Ng
il =
* « n
w w —
ir
ii
            5 UJ

            J'S
            I
   _* >< -,j !
                   i*
                   g.E

                  ^1
                  S|fi
                  «j= -e
                  Slfi
                  nil
'•=^c
ii*
                  l-ll
                  S -a.S>
    Sa*
    118.

    ^11
     E a
     S-3
                      •*_ W
                      O —
                      lit
                             » jf-n
                                 Sit


               m
               Hi
               ?«s
                                  £ $ o
                        •H
                        o«S
                        f il
                        f --a «

                        Iff

                        • I


                        MS
                        III
                                        5

                                        I
                              o
                              II
                                            «j= S>
                                            Iff
                     Hill!

-------
   .5

   ?
   m 52
   •
   £-0
   II
     in
   0)


   I
c
g>
'w
 n
             a*
             JU.
II
                £ 3

                I!
                 8»x
                 SB'S
                 8 * B
                 ill
                 S E g
    II"
                N

                         Hi
                         »«a

                         111


                           .8
                      S



                      E
                                  o n

                                I
                                         5 « .£ c at "5 5 35
                                         J -C TJ -S JS 
-------
I
I
m 2
"o 9>
5 *

!!
% (Q
13
W.|
<*> 0)
O -Q
^^ _\
Q

"w

—     E E
O     55
                 I
                 S.
                 f
                 fl
             ill III
                               «5
                               itef
                               *o!
                           5>*t
-,*
~Si"
                                                          *?
                                                          IX,
                                                          ce
                                                          C

-------
   to
    -Q
   w> A

   II
   £
<
LU
c
D)
'w
0)
Q
(A
(0
_ro

O
g ^
TS g

! i
03
— a
II
13
                   I
                    -
                   ?3 ™

                   P.I
                   JS CTtJ
                       Is

                       II
                       C EL

                       If
                       Is

                       filfi
               16

               II
                          t~3Sj«-ga|; rt!
                          MSfiliSi
                               fe


                               I
                       i£
                       is
                       ts
                       Slg
                       III
                       •*= o TB
                       Hi
                           M g"S

                           III


                           •if I
                           |S|


                           lit
                           5 » E
                           H^
                       IN « *

                       IS
                       £s
                                  iSS«
                          \m\
                           Iri
                    !l.
«*H*
I Itll
                                                                4

-------
  I

  I
  UJ V
  t» fe
  5 *

  I!
  o 1
  10 i
  <•>•§
  o -Q
  3-*

  II
   18
<
UJ
D)
"to
0)
O


(0
(O
_co

o
         5

         I
3> S.

II
I
18
       i< j

       Ji»
                                I
                                i
                                 I
                    Hi
                    Pi
                    go 2
                   lilll
                    11
                           pf
                           Hi
                           ft
                             SJ
                             a?
                                               5

                                               I
                            HI!
                            iiifi
                                         a,
                                         CO

                                         c

-------
  UJ £
  •
  I!
  o 1
  00
  II
   S--
   i!
   Q)


   I
c
D)
"(0
0)
Q
O
          I
1 i
1 i
& £
e e
& £
 I
 0


 D




 i

 I
                s

                I
                1
?3feB='
«; J J~J.S*]^_.
                I
                Iff
                    II
                    oft E
                    •££
               s
               1
               I
                       I
                       111
            3

            I
            3

            S

            I
                      lilt
            >|i
            HI
         I
                                   |
                       ll
                       sf
                       - W t

                       Isl
                       it
                       aj

                       it
                                             £8
                                             ??'5
                                             III
                                             III
                                             3*i
                                             III
                              If

                              'S.f'S'
                              ^^ E

                              111
                                     »•• K

                                     gf,


                                     is
                           II  i||

                          Illllllllll
                                                       2
                                                       (X
                                                       oo

-------
   8

   I
   uj S2
     I

   o
   * "!
   2 J
   £•0
   0) -Q
   II
   I
  £


  i
  s
<
LLJ
C
O)

'w
0)

Q
(A
_ro

O
          £

          •5

          E
          !<

          SJ
                  1*
                  £
        "gT
§•5

H

II

II
I*
IE

P^
*2|

ill

S^B

Sfi
-g * o

Igs
nF
                    S a.

                    •i
                    is
                    s £
y<2


*j|" "lySl3
;"'= S
3
.€"
§0

»i
£ i
•BE



i!
Hg


•SS«


IP
M P
                  I
                  1?
                  iS
S*

i!
ii
                      i
£8S




I|I

-------
I

I
Uj «o
^>  w
                                    as
                          sf
                                 •S-S
                                 11
                                       III

                                       'li:S
                                       f&l
                                       ill
sf I

III

V § Ol
fc.» 6
~?3
                                       II
                               «3S:3as
                                             tl
                                             Si

                                             IB
                                             R °
88.
II

!!
                                                         2
                                                         CO

-------
  I
  uj 52
  •
     1

  II
   o
  £
c
D)
 (0
JO

O
if-
Dg
>m
AC
•3



f,
            i!
               ' « fc^stt,
              •i • i1
    f
    n

    I
                    2*
           m
                       •s
                       I
                       a.

                       I

                       £
                    «A "
-------
  I
  I
  I1
  §1
  % (Q


-------
   I
   I
   UJ
  % (0
     j
   SI
   Ii
   Q)
   IS

   £
<
UJ
c
g>
'
0)
Q
O
               II
               ".2
               I1
               .2. |"





               II
                   !
Is!
s'l^-
* § »

111
                      Is!
    Sf!
    CD <0 I
    s!i
                            P£i

                            (0

                          !N » O
                          • S
                          IS.
                          DO.

                      t

                      I
                      3
                      1
      I!
                                        b

                                        £
ii
18.
II
                  i£
                  Ii
                 I5t
                       f
                                        fj
      ȣ
      f!
      If
                              Illi
                                                             CLi

                                                             90

-------
  i
  O
   s--

   11
  £
c
g>


0)

Q


(0
O
E E

2 £
    Is
    3*
          .1.2
              »f
              ll
             i!
             If
if
t»
II
|S
SB

ii*
ii!

Mi
If!
Til's
           II
           i!
           l!
           • -
I

S
                     f 3


      51
      c'o!
                        CD £
                      I1
                      i*
                      ??
                      f 8
51
0. -D




II
                             *»
                             |

                             •s

                           I i

                           i  1
                           !  »

                           ^  i

                           ii
                           1
                               wfc
                                        c£

                                        f~
                       II


                       t*


                       II
                       2l
                         ill
                         ill
                                           £?S
                                      •5


                                      1
                    fflj 
-------
  I

  I
  UJ
  tS
  S

  I!
  o i
  55 «B
   "§
  o
  w

  I
<
LJJ
       I
0>
Q

t/>
(0
JO
O
        «c
        o •>
        zn
         > M
         ,s *
         Wo.
        •5


        I,
        isf
        ; 3 c
             S.8

             If,
             1
            1
!rf
!i-i:

                  I
                  e
                      H
                      I
                      £
 0.
 S
 s

 I
 1
                           11
 f
 E •>
 it
 8-fi
§••="--81
,*»*.!]
                               I*
II
Q_ 3
If
Si
LI.
                                 ill
             •JSjjjff. &
              11
              ' M

              if!


              if!.*
              iSSS
                                    II
                                       I
                                 II

                                             O.
                                             oo

-------

  Uj M
  2|
  75 -J
   S "o
   0) -Q
   Si
   s--
  £
c
OJ
'55
o>
Q
 (A
_
O
«2
Q »
z«
K£
          ol
          3i
              S e !
              S ... -i


              *|J

              ?«i
              i-S-j
              « £ J
              (on. ]
                 s?
                 II!
                 li
                 32
                -I
                l!
      I
      •s

      II


            I
            i
           isfi
           III!
                           ts
                   u
                   I °
                   i!
                               E


                               &

                              -I
I

1
•s
1.1
                          fl
                          £?
                          i!
                          Us
                          " £


                          III
                          ill
                           if!
                            I
                            s
                                         a
          III
           51?
              •2§
              ft -a

              II

              II
  SI
  8*1
  tfj!
1
                                              oe


                                              1

                                              I

-------
      ATTACHMENT 9




CLASS II DESIGN FMEA REPORT

-------
if
S^
*l
  z «
  Q. -C
  ttQ-
       II
     m
       fan
      .1
       SE
J.j
     111!
       &>i-&.<$*<
      J2.S
      !|
     Sfi|
     w-o •


     !!l
     III
               o
               I
I
         I I6-
         llif
                     x,.i.
                     P.i
                     •a s1
                          ll

                           -
                          11*
                          '
                         It!1
                         8||

                         II!

                               sis
                               Hi
                               111
                              i
                             Is?
                             afs
                             || ts
                             a ^ o>

                             Bl
                                      w g"B
                                      ffl
                                      £Ss
                                      s&l
                                      •
                              H
                              If
                                   * I 8 11 .-?


                                   t-5 * rifSl
                                   *||||1
                               "

-------
       Is
       |l
       la
       If

       fl
ill
 1
      *i
      i
 ill
 111
     I  I!
         JS O *> _'

         f!|i
         «Hi
         £ i i i
           .

           18,2
          IB


                                         I
                                         fi
I
1

i
i
         11
 HI?  nil   * i <
 1*1S .5^* 15  di.B*8|

-------
i i
II

i£
K£

    ss
    to a!
                 I
                 I
                 I
                  r

                 II
    *§!*  ill  §
    151* siti.ls ,
 sf
« b?
                              iiSESs!!^
                                 III
                                 I!!

                                 til
                                  ?
                                 — IX a
                                 £ HI
                                          S

                                          i
                                      I
                                    c^    c
                                                          2

-------
Is
Q
            I



            i
                               6
        i
        2
!i


                 • £ iSI
!1!.tmmi*2l!SJ

-------
I
              ii
              *11,



                         I
                         .1 S
                                  sS
                                  So.

                                  °>
                                  S£
                                   3 rt
                                         II
                                                         u
                                                         <

-------
E E
    "SO.
    D ui
    z »
    SS
    0> CL
          6
           !
         \l\
          I1
         I
                 S.
i
              fl
                         *i
                         "SI
                         !,•£ i
|if
f sS
lii
ir
it

                        llll
                                5
                                o
I
4)

1
I
                                .
                              111
            fill
            ias^s
            sifll!
                     11
                                       JI
                                       ll*
i
g
I
I
                                            I
           ill!

-------
     I
     I
     5
     I

     g
if


K
"=£

      • 8.
      II
             §

             1
          S g s i
             II
             E 01
iStHH-liW
:%^M^;1-S:
•*'-!?«"< -:.«:*!
  if
  st
  sf
  S.1
  II
                                               S^
                                               SI
                                                      a a
                                                      •S'S
                                   o 8
                                  ft

                                  I
                                           II
                                            IS

-------
I
            :f
            &
            1
            8
       I
             a.
             1
      , o

sspiaSKsa
!«i:^>,S,gS5!;i»;i;.7;-i||
    .w!;;;E::L'JN;IS(a
       I


I
g g
   If
   II
                        i
                        •s s

                         1
      if
                I
                                 as
                                 SS
                    Is
                    1
                    B i
                    II
                        II

                                         •ax0-
                                         1-5
                                                 SI*
                                                 !-•§
                                                ill
                                *

                              11
                                                 I
                                                 E
                                                 •5
                                                      ll
                                   iSSf
                                   g°|8
                                   ;£lj
                                   Hit
                                   fill
                                                       l"
                                                        11
                                                       5
                                                       I
                                                 I

                                                                oo
                                                                CL,
                                                                Os
                                                                 c

-------
     i
      -c
     eo.
     O n
    !i
if
          o
          £


5
g

I




i
              •= W E.
                          11
                              Sg
                              VI C
                                     §1
                      w :

                      iiEISsSI

                     •
                     S38J
                       t
                                       f
f!
11
If
II
*f
a I
0@
•s 1
|S
                          II
                          sl

                                        ft
                                        5 *
                                      I!
11
"s
it
*l
i!
                                              &
                                             fii
                               '5 5
                               If

                               II
                                             ifes
                                                            ON

                                                            0.

-------
II
if
       ll
       o 2
       ss.
       II
       I?
       eg to i
   II
   if!
                       ••;».-. *s
                    I e £•
                    ill
i*
Ii&
                       Z 2?
                       0-t
                       a: «
                             £ "
                             s|
                             II
         Si
         sg.
         TI «
                                       i.
                                      Sfl
                                     Ifll
                                     fill!
n c



la
                      i
                      6
                      I
                     I?
                     II
                      I

-------
   |£
        S s
        n £


        si
   i w
   So
        5
 o
 o


 §
 L
   ii
       S E"

       iii
I  •*

ii
II
       !
       li

-------
     Ii
     It
     ]l

     if
      If
      \
     r
!i

I!
(0 U

^1
^8
M
.8 E
                   S. i
                   So.
                  >\ M





                  H
isa
a=l




ii!

iij
«sg

{ii
ill

ft

If!
H"
S£
"S
Q- 2
                           gf

                           If
5l
II

e-2
.is
«2
1.S>
•D £
                           ij
                           IN =

                           S"

                           "i
                           a. s
                     111
llf
gsi.
Ill

!ts

                                     II
                                       II
                                       "2

                                       II

                                       Ii
                                       •D 41

                                       £2


                                       II
     :?'iiy.'
    •s

    S

    ||

    si!
8
M
o
z
u
                                  I
                                  o
                                  £
                                          Jl
       IS»§ ?f i g,i s

       HSllHft!
                           II
           1!
                     1,1
                                sflS
S
|
         &|.s
ii
                         Ii
                         Si
                                111

-------
1i
a
   II
   Si
   •ijS.
   gSl
   Pi
   1*1

   lit
If

II

111

III

*ft

HI
    i*';'i;



     '
        iSili

    82
    s.s
    12*
        I I
         i f
                          f

                          o
                          I
It

i
£ °-


It
   P
   * e
                                 ill
                                 FlI
                                     3
                                     s

-------
         I °
         'l
         ;i
         \l
         U
    SS
    i,6
        •— O i

        *J
    H
    ss
Is
O CA

I-
Ml
.§81
c S *
«|s
             "§'
             II
             £3
             ii
             •B?!
             o •
             :=.£

             II
             ffw
             s
            II
            •as
                 »S
                     f!

                     I"6
                     If
            0.8 aS
i i
5 £
g i
e c
                          II

                                    I
                                    !„•
                                  11
                                  II
                                     its
                                      I
                                      •B
                                              11
                                  B ?=
                                                        ««•
                                                        2

-------
    I
    a i
    11

    f5
    So
 I

 s
 I
    1st
    III
    31
    03
|
          t
          I

          I
          £

                                                         a.

-------
   a

   E
   1,
   SI
       I

       1
       M
      J"5i,
      -/-;
          II
                 !!i
                 *•?
                 Iff
                 ,ul E
                 i«i
                 111
                 !ss£
                  „ 8 "
                 cS 8-5


                 PP
                 Hf 8
                 '•' -s o Qi


                 fit'
                 £ e 9
                 «*"
                 r|8
                 tfJ
            «<|< G * Ni
                   £,=


                   ji
«£%



 S A


«fs
             |li
             ii]
2


1,
 Is
 I i
ii
          li
       .


      Illllll
a I
li
                  ! ja s S !
                  SSigi
                        IP
                        ill
      If
«1
d. n
i»
    •s
    g

   ^?
   !I|
III


III

Iff

II!

Ill
         ii'

         ill
                             ""aaM81
                                 1
                                 0
|lc



HI
«-D •

ill

ill


!i{|






1|I°
                                  .
                                o'S S


                                III
                                BIS
                                £S
                              I
                                Is

                                till!

                                ill 11
                                                 vo

                                                 S

-------
      .Hi
         1
V
s
   i
   •El
   1]
   I?
   "r
fli
II
          •5

          II
                 " S
                 <•> §
                 8|

                  f
                 $1
                 il
           ill

           111
           nS|
            JO) &
            s§
           „ oi
        fl  1
        S a  <
        I^.e-
        III!
                             Sis
                             161
                              t
                 II
               i»ll
               fill
                                  .
                                 fill
                        II
                                •=•5 -
                                fil
                                                           r-
                                                           z

-------
               ATTACHMENT 10

  PROCESS FMEA REPORT - REFUELING PROCESS FOR
CLASS I AND CLASS H, PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3 EQUIPMENT

-------
 CO
 CO
 CD
 O

 O


oZ

 O)
 CD
       1s

       o
I
       .

       IS
        I'
                  So.
jQ) 0 .O


l = °
5 


Iff


if*
2 =15
     s
     c


     Q>
            ll
            a j>
            18-S

            II
                           z

                           tt:
                           
                    a:
                               1
                                          Q.

                                          C -D
                                          •i W



                                          0
                                          8
                            "» S S-
                            IS 8-
                              Isf
                                ..S.-I
                                O> O J
eu

o



g

|

o
A

-------
LL

 CO

 CD
 O

 2
CL

 D)
 0)
a:
C\J
_
O
 TO


 CO
 CO
_03

O
           Z
           CL
           a:
          _
          o

          o ^
          a. J
           I
           o
           £
I
                                     < =5 Q. 5 •£
                                     ss
                                     O.
                   ^
               S » !B C
        ._• T3
         I 9
        ^ (5
        C O
       a.S 5
                       I
                       o
                    §
                    |
                                     sr
                                     ss
                                     §15
                                                 •5
                                                 c
                                                 o —


                                                 sS
                                                 «

                                                 g
                                                            HI
                                                                    c <•>
                                                           1st
                                                           <5 3 P
                                                  g
                                                  =8
                                                                a
                                                         s&
                                                         E O
It
                                                                                    Cu

                                                                                    O
                                                                         I

-------
 CO
 CO

 8
 O
 0)
 c
 CD   I
 0)
a:
CM   =
jro
O
 03


 CO
 CO

^5
O



-------
<
LU
 CO
 CO

 8
 O
 O)
 CD
CN

 CO
 CO
JO

O
 CO
 CO
 CO
_co

O
 4J

I

-------
 CO

 8

 8
CL

 D)
 0)
 o

o:

CN


 CO



o

•D


 CO   _

—   I

 V)   I
 e/>   |

JO   !

O   »
        O
ta



Is
.Si
CO U_
5
         w £•
         O

         "•c

         3
         o
             £?
             •

     11
     2 2
                  .S1

                  5
                  Q.

                  3
                            fin
                I
                   8f
                 81
                 fl
                        t!
                     I
                     w.
B>

€
u

1
                    Is
                                      '5
                                      go.

                                      3?
                                      13 a
                                      0:5
                                       3 .-

                                      « s 8

                                      ISS
                                      W W flj
                                            w c o
                                            ra ra a
                                            o>O S
                                                       Q.

                                                       of
                                                       •s
                                               «u_
                                             l«?
                                             ! W R)

                                             i if
                                             •o£
                                                c
                                                o

                                                "«
                                                        "5
                                                        o:
                                                    e«

                                                    is
                                                    •o ra

                                                    g£


                                                    II
                                                    p CN


                                                    ij

                                                    8fTi
                                                    *gl
                                                              O O 73 O
2 E

£ a.
3 S •*
                                                                               u
                                                                               e
                                                                              j=
                                                                                           I

-------
LL

 CO
 CO
 CD
 O

 e
a.

 O)


"CD
 CD
o:

CM

 CO
 CO
 OJ

O
 c  §
 03  »


 CO  I
 CO  ?
JS  i

O  5
        I
        Q.
        cL
       a
       O
       o

z
   l«
   is
   •D JS
   i£
   ^i
   2 CO
   r-'N
            SQ: .
            *gl
•g 
-------
               ATTACHMENT 11
PROCESS FMEA REPORT - SHUTDOWN AND EQUIPMENT
STORAGE PROCESS FOR CLASS I AND CLASS II, PHASE 2       .
            AND PHASE 3 EQUIPMENT                  f

-------
<

LJJ
 CO
 CO

 8
 O
 CD
 O)
 55

 o
•+-*
CO

•a
 c
 CO

 C


 O
"O
V)

CM

 CO
 CO
JO




li

f |

 CO I
 CO S
JO I

O «
      a.
      ir
         Z 5
                  Oi
                  •°
                         8 n

                          s;

         *
                                CL

                                c -o
          il
              CM
              0)
              « o
                     *
                      S E
                      if
   f
                  g. j



                  f i
a £


t!
f d)
o en
'ts.
0) O
    •g o-

    S5

    g-fe
-c 8
o a>


a> S

.£ £
O> 4)
C O.
a> o

       IA
                             Si
                                p
                                "§•
                                2-S.
i?
4> &

'S> a>

0) O
                                     t
                                    28
_ a>




If
o a.

 Q


'5)1

a) o
                      I.

                      "I
                      It

                      Z
                                               at

                                               £2
                                               S^
                                               •s «>

                                               »-'

                                               fits
                                               c c >>


                                               III
                          s
                          0)

                          I
                          I
                         I
                         Si
                                  ,

                              II
                                                    t
                                   t
                                   TO
                                   W
                                    it
                                    It

                                                          n
                                                          o E
                                         c'!

                                         l

-------
<
LLJ
 CO
 0)
 O

 S
Q.

 (D
 O)

 5

S
CO

TJ
 c
 03



 I
CO

CM

 (0
 CO
_03

O

•o

 CD
 CO  £
 CO  *
jo  |

O  5
       ia

       i
      So
      o
      o
       !l
           o gg

             "
            l
             i t: d>
             rai
          il
            if
ffr
                 ill.?
                  .1'
        •i>-2
        2 °
                     o o

                  nil
                  Q. « JJ O
                  §sS
                  ?sl
                  O T3 5
               o> g-1-1 ig
               £•- s t:

               sit-
               S  -H g-
               •= oi S w
               I-EB.B
               Q.ai'B c
                   o
                   •
                   $ =
                 a)


                 fl
                  E "H

                 ll?
cr-
HI <
              2 § S
              -i s o •
               i g TJ

              ^s»
              •g <0 -
        

              .£"5
                V
               t!
               is
                                LLJ W
                                       A
                                       &:
•a "O

1«
m +^

is
 it
ais
                           £
                           &J
p
Is
ES
TO-O.
  \&
                                            w:
                      Ho>
                      CO -O

                      E «
                      .&£>
                      3 *=


                      ||


                      S.I
C 0)
S D>
.9- w


iJw
     0) 'D

     g-2

     t|


     ||


     S.I
                                                 I i
                                                 TO-D
              S

              Sj:
Is
E§
                                                     §ofl
                                                     wz S
                                                     O>1
                                                     5.1

                                                     IP af
     o "o
     E jj
     .9-J3

     II

     §.!
                                                 LU I
                                            : «
                                            !•£>
                                           Sf
                                                     I
                                                     LU C
                                                               8
                                                               £

                                                              1

-------
               ATTACHMENT 12

  PROCESS FMEA REPORT - EQUIPMENT AND ENGINE
MAINTENANCE FOR CLASS I AND CLASS II, PHASE 2 AND
              PHASE 3 EQUIPMENT

-------
LL

(/)
05

8
O
 CD
 O
 c
 CO
 c
 CD
 CD


'6>
 C
LU
^3

 CD


 Q.

*3
 CT
LU

CN

 CO
 V)
 CO

o"

•ol

 £1
 CO  a
 CO  *
JO  8

O  5
      I
      O
      z
z
a
of
      «"§

      IS
       f
          I

          1
   P
   If
   CO ^

   w'S
          fl

          Sl

       1


       i
       O)

       LU
             LU
             H
             i
       c n.
                 =

                 8-
                     = •2^
                     IS-?
                     »5S
                     go. z
                     If ^
                     £ 5 «>
                     g-SS
                     a?£?

                     II"
                       ;s

                       tS
                      ^•g
                     > s s.
          = ^o>
          18 xr
          a" s
          1*2
          If*
          S s u
          &8£
          £S?
          •s |«
          tl-S

          2«5
          &S*
          111
                                 c „*
                                 

                                  C-,
                                                                 O


-------
 u
 g
•g

-------
u_
 CO
 CD
 o
 o
 8
 03
 

       I
       O

       Q.
       o
       i
          ill!
          S.
            c

          II
!tl
Sill
          .^00.0
                 £.
                 a 42
                 "5 i=
                 •O O
                 0> 73
          1-
          li
          i

          I
          ra

          <5
          ?
          CL

                         II
                         >f
                         &£ E
                         •g C Q.

                         ill
                         i1
                         CO
                         6
                                 Jl
                                    •5
                                   nj 1^
                                   I 2
                                   II
                                    o
0)
a:
                                       w
                                       I
                                       

   If
   act
       8 m
       C Ql
       
S3
oa.
    £» ^*

    5*
    8<*>
    c o
    G> (0
    Q) 2
    l£

    z S
                        il;
                         fo> £
                        = 11

                                                             
  3
OE
I
CO
0)

CD ^
£5
OQ-

-------
 CO
 to

 8
 0
 
        K



       |l
       Z cs
                  CM

                  S
                  ffl

                  a.

                  C TJ
i*
Q f*5
g) «


II
Z 19
p* v/

II
o?
Z n
                           o c
                           Z Q
                                ™ S
                                8 «
                                c a
                                t
           •S «
         1
   II

   I
           2
           Q.
            0)

            fr
            ffi

            W
                   (D
                   to

                     01 ™"
                     C ®




                    11
         5


         I

         I
         co
                  o>
                  .£ «


                  &3
                  IS J3
           3 V
           ^F O
           rtj O

           O)"8
           c 


            tjs
            J3

                                         £
                                             ,Q
                              |
                                  5
                                                                       C "O
                                                                       0) I)

                                                                       II

                                                                           s o.

                                                                           5?
                                                            o


                                                            ITJ
                                                                   o
                                                                   B
                                                                    I
                                                     V) 1C

                                                     tf

                                                     II
                                            «
                                            0.2
                                            0) I
                                            o:c
                                                                                o c
                                                                                c n

                                                                                si
                                                                             S

                                                                             I
                                                         (A gj



                                                         II

-------
<
LU
 CO
 8
 E
o.

 8
 CO

I
'co
 CD

"5)
 CD

 Q.
LU
CM
Qlf
 05 5

 W I
 CO J
JO I
O 5
        2
        (L
        of
      of
      II
       s
           Jg >W

           I?
           I
               Q.
               c -a
               a) at
               ™ s g.
               E^ S^
               QCffl
                                                                              OH
                                                                              
-------
              ATTACHMENT 13

IGNITION PROPERTY DATA OF VARIOUS MATERIALS
    AND HUMAN SKIN DAMAGE AT ELEVATED
 TEMPERATURE/RADIANT HEAT EXPOSURE DATA

-------
Ignition  Property  Data  of  Various  Materials  and  Human  Skin  Damage  at  Elevated
Temperature/Radiant Heat Exposure Data

       Tables 13-1 through 13-9 provides ignition data for various materials that are reasonably
expected to be in areas a lawn mower or other small  residential application motor with hot
surfaces would be stored.  Also provided are data  related to  contact burn temperatures and
thermal radiation exposure effects on human skin.

       The types of materials considered are both solids and liquids.  Ignition  can occur in the
solid phase, known as smoldering ignition, and the gas  phase, known as flaming ignition. For
flaming combustion to occur the solid  or liquid must gasify. Liquids, such as gasoline, can exert
a vapor pressure  at ambient conditions producing a  flammable mixture. Unlike  liquids, solid
combustibles do not exert a significant vapor pressure under ambient conditions and have to be
heated to gasify.  The gasification of solids is a thermally induced decomposition of complex
molecules in a process known as pyrolysis. A solid can be heated to pyrolysis when exposed to a
heat flux source that is radiative, convective, conductive,  or a combination. Whether or not a
solid material will reach a temperature sufficient to cause pyrolysis and how quickly it can reach
that temperature depends on factors such as the intensity  of heat flux; material properties such as
thickness, density, specific heat, thermal conductivity, and emissivity.

       Once a solid or liquid produces a combustible mixture of gases, flaming ignition can
occur as piloted ignition or unpiloted ignition. Unpiloted ignition is also known as  auto-ignition.
A piloted ignition initiates from a small flame or a hot spark located  in the combustible gases.
Auto-ignition initiates from a hot surface that heats the combustible gases  to the auto-ignition
temperature.

       Smoldering  ignition  occurs in the solid phase and is observed more frequently  with
porous and cellulosic materials.  Smoldering ignition occurs when a material is heated for long
durations under low heat flux conditions.  The heat flux is not sufficient to produce adequate
pyrolysis for flaming combustion, but a high enough heat flux applied for a sufficient duration
causes an exothermic reaction at the  surface that can become  self-accelerating.  This type of
ignition is observed as a glowing on the surface of the solid and can lead to flaming ignition if
the heat losses are low and the exothermic reaction is allowed to accelerate.

       In addition to  ignition of materials reasonably expected to be in areas of motor storage,
ignition of materials expected in areas of use, specifically vegetation, is also a concern. Ignition
temperatures of vegetation have been measured by numerous researchers with widely varying
values.   The ignition temperature of vegetation varies based on moisture  content, density,
thickness, species, etc. Ignition of vegetation by motors can occur  by heat flux from hot surfaces
and ejection of hot material from the exhaust. Ignitability tests [1] of forest fuels showed that dry
vegetation  ignites within a few seconds at 550°C and for  long durations of exposure ignites at
350-400°C.  However, due  to the variability  of vegetation ignition properties, Babrauskas I1]
recommends using ignition temperatures of solid wood.
                                    Attachment 13 P-l

-------
       The data provided in Table A13-10 is for the effects of thermal radiation levels on human
skin.  Figure A13-1 provides data on reversible human skin injury and cell death as a function of
contact skin  temperature versus exposure time.  From Figure A13-1, a contact temperature of
approximately 70 °C for less than 1 second will cause cell death.  Reversible injury, as defined in
ASTM C  1055  [2], occurs for an exposure time  of less than  1  second at  a temperature of
approximately 64 °C.  As the exposure time increases, the temperature to cause cell injury and
the temperature to cause reversible injury approach each other.

       For a more detailed discussion on ignition, material properties, and human burn hazards,
please refer to the references provided.

      TABLE A13-1. IGNITION TEMPERATURES OF VARIOUS MATERIALS |31
                           Material
                           Aircraft panel epoxy Fiberite          505
                           Asphalt shingle                    378
                           Carpet #2 (wool, stock)              465
                           Carpet #2 (wool, treated)             455
                           Carpet #2 (wool, untreated)           435
                           Carpet (acrylic)                    300
                           Carpet (nylon wool blend)            412
                           Chipboard (S118M)                 390
                           Douglas fir particle board (1.27 cm)     382
                           Fiber insulation board               355
                           Fiberboard, low density (S 1 1 9M)       330
                           Fiberglass shingle                  445
                           Foam, flexible (2.54 cm)             390
                           Foam, rigid (2.54 cm)               435
                           Glass reinforced plastic (1.14 mm)     400
                           Glass reinforced plastic (2.24 mm)     390
                           Gypsum board, (common) (1.27
                           mm)                             565
                           Gypsum board, fire retardant (1 .27
                           cm)                             510
                           Gypsum board, Wallpaper (S142M)    412
                           Hardboard(3.175mm)              365
                           Hardboard (6.35 mm)               298
                           Hardboard (gloss paint) (3.4 mm)      400
                           Hardboard (nitrocellulose paint)       400
                           Hardboard (S159M)                 372
                           Mineral wool, textile paper (S160M)    400
                           Particle board (1 .27 cm stock)         412
                           Plywood, fire retardant (1.27 mm)      620
                           Plywood, plain (0.635 cm)            390
                           Plywood, plain (1.27  cm)             390
                           Polycarbonate (1.52  mm)             528
                                     Attachment 13 P -2

-------
                     Polyisocyanurate (5.08 cm)         445
                     Polymetnylmethacrylate polycast
                     (1.59mm)                    278
                     Polymethytmethacrylate type g
                     (1.27cm)                     378
                     Polystyrene (5.08 cm)             630
                     Polyurethane (S353M)            280
                     Wood panel (S178M)    	385
   TABLE A13-2.  TYPICAL VALUES OF THE MINIMUM AUTO-IGNITION
         TEMPERATURE FOR FLAMMABLE GASES AND VAPORS M
Material
Hydrogen
Carbon disulphide
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Propane
n-Butane
iso-Butane
n-Octane
iso-Octane{2,2,4-trrmethylpentane)
Ethene
Acetylene (ethyne)
Methanol
Ethanol
Acetone
Benzene
Minimum auto-
ignition
temperature ("C)
400
90
609
601
450
288a
460a
206"
415"
450
305
385
363
465
560
              * Note that branched alkanes have much higher auto-ignition temperatures

              than their straight-chain isomers.



TABLE A13-3. PILOTED IGNITION TEMPERATURES OF VARIOUS WOODS m
Wood species
Western red cedar
(280 kg/m3)


Heat flux
(kW/m2)
15.4
19.7
24.0
28.7
Jig
450
431
365
346
Plateau
temp.
366
379
.
-
(s)
583
216
57
30
                              Attachment 13 P -3

-------
                      31.7     354     -      23


obeche
(350 kg/m3)



white pine
(360 kg/m3)



mahogany
(540 kg/m3)


15.4
19.7
24.0
28.7
31.7
15.4
19.7
24.0
28.7
31.7
15.4
19.7
24.0
28.7
31.7
497
442
364
344
340
446
411
397
387
375
465
427
364
360
353
359
361

-
354
380

-
365
385

-
-
684
176
60
39
29
, 1094
257
95
48
32
650
324
90
60
38
TABLE A13-4. TUBE FURNACE TESTS FOR THE AUTO-IGNITION
      TEMPERATURE OF CELLULOSE FILTER PAPER|5!
Furnace
temperature ("C)
228
230
232
246
253
280
Heating
time (h)
70
45
7-9
3
2
0.5
Ignition
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
   TABLE A13-5. AUTO-IGNITION OF FILTER PAPER FROM
                   HOT-AIR BLOWER151
               Distance from outlet  Hot air   Ignition
                    (mm)     temp. (°C)  time (s)

                    25        876     Sis
                    51        849     3.7
                    76        705     5.3
                    102        545     10.5
                    127        413     N.I.
                     Attachment 13 P-4

-------
TABLE A13-6. HOTPLATE IGNITION TEMPERATURE OF SOME FABRICS|51
Fabric
cotton
acetate
nylon 6
triacetate
acrylic
polypropylene
wool
Ignition
temperature
(°C)
400
525
530
540
560
570
600
             modacrylic (Teklan - polyacrylonitrile / polyvinylidene
             chloride, 50/50)
           TABLE A13-7. AUTO-IGNITION OF COTTON FABRIC
                     FROM A HOT-AIR BLOWER m
                     Distance from outlet  Hot air    Ignition
                          (mm)      temp. (°C)   time (s)
25
51
76
102
114
876
849
705
545
470
3.1 .
3.5
5.0
17.0
N.I.
TABLE A13-8. HOT SURFACE IGNITION TEMPERATURES FOR CARPETS I5)
                                            Ignition
                   Material                  temperature
                  	(*C)

                   acrylic                      710
                   nylon 6                     660
                   polypropylene                 735
                   viscose rayon                 660
                   wool                       760
                            Attachment 13 P-5

-------
TABLE A13-9. FLAMMABILITY LIMITS, QUENCHING DISTANCES, AND
       MINIMUM IGNITION ENERGIES FOR VARIOUS FUELS p>51
                                         Flammability Limits
                 TBoii
                                                      Stoichiometric
        Fuel
Spontaneous  Equivalence   Equivalence
  Ignition    Ratio*™   Ratio 6.1
-
2.54
1.64
4.08
4.25
2.83
13.3
2.5
15.0
16.0
14.8
-
34.5
17.2
6.5
15.1
15.6
         TABLE A13-10.  EFFECTS OF THERMAL RADIATION '4|
               Radiant heat
               flux (kW/m2)
              Observed effect
                   0.67    Summer sunshine
                    1.0     Maximum for indefinite skin exposure
                    6.4     Pain after 8-s skin exposure
                   10.4    Pain after 3-s skin exposure
                   16.0    Blistering of skin after a 5-s exposure
                            Attachment 13 P-6

-------
             80
             70
             40
             30
                            •Threshold A - Complete Transepidermal Necrosis (Cell Death)

                            •Threshold B - Reversible Epidermal Injury
                          10         100         1000       10000       100000
                            Exposure Time - Seconds (Log Scale)
      FIGURE A13-1. TEMPERATURE-TIME RELATIONSHIP FOR BURNS [2]
                                                                                               *r
References:

1.     Babrauskas, V., Ignition Handbook. 2003, Issaquah, WA: Fire Science Publishers.
2.     ASTM C 1055-03 Standard Guide for Heated System Surface Conditions that Produce
       Contact Burn Injuries. 2003, ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA.
3.     The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. 3rd ed, ed. P. DiNenno, et al. 2002,
       Quincy, Massachusetts: National Fire Protection Association.
4.     Drysdale, D., An Introduction to Fire Dynamics. Second Edition ed. 1998, Southern
       Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
5.     Turns, S., An Introduction to Combustion: Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. 2000:
       McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
                                  Attachment 13 P-7

-------